IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2022 of 2005 Date of Decision 06.12.2010 Harbans Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vikas Awasthy, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 04.10.2005, passed by the Appellate Court at Fatehgarh Sahib, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') against the judgment dated 28.01.2002, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity 'the Act'). The allegations against the petitioner are that he was found in possession of 2340 halves alongwith 107 broken halves of country-made liquor make 'Sherdil Santra' without any permit or licence. The said liquor was taken into possession by the police and ruqa Ex.PE was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Consequently, on trial, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. His appeal also failed. It has been informed to this Court that the petitioner has been pardoned and the entire sentence awarded by the Courts below have been remitted. Criminal Revision No.2022 of 2005 -2- Heard, on scrutiny of the impugned judgment, the evidence, as examined by the prosecution, appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. The witnesses have consistently stated that the accused was found in possession of 2340 halves alongwith 107 broken halves of illicit liquor. PW Sub Inspector Baldev Singh was given up as unnecessary. Non- joining of the independent witness is not fatal to the present case. No such illegality much less irregularity or perversity was detected rendering the judgment as invalid, therefore, the findings of fact returned by the Courts below regarding conviction do not call for any interference at this revisional stage. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the sentence, as awarded by the trial Court, is already on the lower side. Liberal view has already been taken in this case of heavy recovery. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 06.12.2010 mamta-II