Crl. Rev. No.1401 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1401 of 2004 Date of Decision: 11 - 3 - 2010 Joginder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.S.K.Pruthi, Advocate for Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Joginder Singh son of Ganga Singh was named as an accused in case FIR No.72 dated 14.5.1999 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act'). The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. In the present case, FIR Ex.PE/1 was recorded on the basis of Crl. Rev. No.1401 of 2004 [2] ruqa Ex.PE sent by ASI Bawa Singh, Investigating Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala. ASI Bawa Singh PW4 was present in Village Villa Kothi in connection with patrolling duty and for excise checking. He constituted two raiding parties and on the basis of a secret information, conducted the raid and found that petitioner Joginder Singh was operating a working still for distillation of illicit liquor. The petitioner at that time was found feeding the fire under the hearth. The working still was cooled down and dismantled. The equipments of the working still and the Lahan (raw material for distilling illicit liquor) were taken into possession. Lahan recovered was found to be 100 Kgs. I have perused the judgments of both the Courts below. The learned trial Court has rightly held that testimonies of Jaspal Singh PW1 and ASI Bawa Singh PW4 inspire confidence. Therefore, the findings of conviction cannot be disturbed. However, in the present case, occurrence pertains to the year 1999. A period of about 11 years is going to elapse. It has been reported by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kapurthala that the petitioner has undergone 4 months and 23 days of actual sentence and that he is not involved in any such other case. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner can be released on probation. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 585, that even where minimum sentence is prescribed, there is no bar on releasing the petitioner on probation. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of six months Crl. Rev. No.1401 of 2004 [3] on his maintaining good conduct and behaviour and bonds to this effect will be furnished to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. However, cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Non- deposit of the costs of litigation by the petitioner shall be construed as a dismissal of the present revision petition. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) March 11, 2010. JUDGE RC