Crl. Revision No.2081 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.2081 of 2005 Date of Decision: August 17, 2010 Balkar Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.RK Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. <><><> JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-Fast Track Court, Muktsar (hereinafter referred as “Appellate Court”) whereby judgment and order, dated 2.2.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”) convicting the petitioner was upheld and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in para 2 of the Appellate Court judgment, are as under: Crl. Revision No.2081 of 2005 -2- “On 13.2.2003, H.C.Karamjit Singh along with other police officials was going from village Kabarwala to village Sohnewala for patrolling the area. When the police party reached near the bridge of canal minor, they received a secret information that accused Balkar Singh and his son Babbi are distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still in their house and if a raid is conducted, they can be apprehended red-handed. The information was found reliable. As such, HC Karamjit Singh sent a writing/ruqa to the Police Station for registration of case against them, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. The police party then proceeded to conduct the raid. On its way, it joined with them one Ranjit Singh. Then, a raid was conducted on the house of the accused. At the time of raid, accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. He was apprehended at the spot. The working still was dismantled and cooled down. There was a drum containing 20 kg. lahan which was being used as boiler. A bottle containing 750 Mls. of liquor was found lying there out of which 180 Mls. were taken out as sample. The sample nip and the remaining liquor contained in the bottle were sealed separately with the seal bearing mark 'KS'. All the components of the working still and the other case property were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The contents of the drum containing lahan and the sample were got tested. The Investigating Officer completed all formalities of investigation, deposited the case property with the MHC and on completion Crl. Revision No.2081 of 2005 -3- of the investigation of the case, challan was put in Court for trial of the accused-appellant.” 3. The accused-petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as three witnesses, viz., Janak Raj, Excise Inspector as PW1; Head Constable Karamjit Singh as PW2 and Head Constable Gurtej Singh as PW3. 5. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the prosecution allegations and in defence examined Ranjit Singh as DW1. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for a term as noticed in para 1 of this judgment. 7. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 10.11.2005 by this Court and the present revision petition was admitted on 31.8.2006. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the finding of the learned Courts below and confines his submission to the question of quantum of sentence only and has prayed that sentence already awarded by the Trial Court be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no leniency should be shown to the petitioner as the offence stands proved. 10. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 13.2.2003. Thus, the petitioner has suffered a protracted trial for about 7-1/2 years. As per record, the petitioner has already undergone sentence for about two months. He has not misused the Crl. Revision No.2081 of 2005 -4- concession of bail. 11. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances and, particularly, the protracted trial of about 7-1/2 years and keeping in view the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and, in addition thereto, the sentence of fine is enhanced. 12. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(c) of the Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- besides the fine already imposed by the Trial Court. He shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of enhanced fine with the concerned Court within the period stipulated above, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 14. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the judgment/order of the Appellate Court dated 10.10.2005 and that of the Trial Court dated 2.2.2005 is modified to the extent indicated above. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) August 17, 2010 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No