IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR.R No.56 of 2009 Date of decision : June 19, 2009 Singh Bahadur …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Cr.R No.56/2009 Heard and gone through the record. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgments of the trial Magistrate and the first Appellate Court. Trial Court, vide judgment dated 12th September, 2008, convicted the revision petitioner of offence, under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1961, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, for allegedly possessing a can, containing five bottles of illicit liquor. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the said judgment has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 27th February, 2009. 3. The only submission, which has been made on behalf of the revision petitioner is that he is a poor labourer, belonging to Nepal and Nepali Gurkhas are normally habitual of drinking and the liquor, in question, was meant for self-consumption. He has stated that leniency be shown, in the matter of award of punishment. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. Record of the trial Court shows that after the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions Court, revision petitioner was arrested and sent to jail for serving out the sentence. He has been in jail since 8th May, 2009. Looking to the facts and the circumstances of the case, as also the quantity of the liquor seized from the revision petitioner, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of substantive imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. I order accordingly. 5. I have been told that the amount of fine has already been deposited by the petitioner on 15th September, 2008. Receipt, regarding deposit of fine, available with the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been shown to the Court. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner be released, immediately. Revision petition stands disposed of. Cr.MPs No.285, 286 & 287 of 2009 Infructuous. June 19, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.