-1- Criminal Revision No.1251 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1251 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 22,2010. Garja Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 15,5,2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 8.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, convicting the petitioner under Section 61 (1) ( c) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short `the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for -2- Criminal Revision No.1251 of 2003. one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in Court when the matter was taken up for hearing in spite of the fact that his presence was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State and have gone through the records of the case. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 31.1.2001, a police party consisting of Head Constable Kashmir Singh, Head Constable Teja Singh, Constable Sohan Lal and Constable Kuldip Singh, while on patrol duty, after receiving a secret information against the accused-petitioner that he was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor and selling the same and that a raid at his house could lead to recovery of illicit liquor, raided the house of the petitioner. Before conducting raid at the house of the petitioner, Member Panchayat Nihal Singh, an independent witness, was joined in the police party. At that time, he was feeding the fire in the hearth of working still in the `Kotha' meant for placing fodder on the right side of its entrance. The petitioner was apprehended. The working still was dismantled. The fire under hearth was put off and it (hearth) was cooled down. A drum containing 25 litres of `Lahan' was -3- Criminal Revision No.1251 of 2003. recovered. A plastic can containing illicit liquor distilled by the petitioner was also lying near the working still. A sample nip was drawn from the plastic can. All the components of the working still including the illicit liquor were taken into possession. The Chemical Examiner vide his report on record opined the contents of the sample parcel to be illicit liquor. Head Constable Kashmir Singh (P.W.5) is the Investigating Officer of the case. Both Head Constable Teja Singh (P.W.3) and Head Constable Kashmir Singh (P.W.5) have corroborated each other on all the material particulars of the case. No doubt, Nihal Singh, Member Panchayat, the only independent witness in the case, was not examined by the prosecution, but it hardly affects the merits of the case of the prosecution. In fact, the said Nihal Singh was examined by the accused in his defence as D.W.1 and he deposed in favour of the accused. Thus, it establishes on record that the prosecution was justified in not examining Nihal Singh as he had been won over by the accused. The accused-petitioner was apprehended by the police officials while distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in discharge of their official duties. They had no enmity with the petitioner to falsely implicate him in this case. After perusing the record, I do not see any flaw in the prosecution case, which otherwise stands proved on record. Under the circumstances, there is no ground warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has rightly -4- Criminal Revision No.1251 of 2003. been convicted in this case. As such, conviction of the petitioner under Section 61 (1) ( c ) of the Act, as recorded by both the Courts below, is maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that Sword of Damocles has remained hanging on the head of the petitioner-accused for the last more than nine years as the case relates to 31.1.2003, ends of justice will be adequately met if the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine and the default clause are left unaltered. I order accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this revision petition is dismissed. February 22,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE