IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 475 of 2004 Date of Decision: April 1,2009 Gurnam Singh .................................................................Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ............................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 5.1.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, vide which he was convicted under Section 61(1) (b) of the Punjab Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for one month. The petitioner challenged his conviction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide his judgment dated 19.11.2003 upheld the conviction of the petitioner but ordered that the petitioner be released on probation. However, as the petitioner failed to furnish the probation bonds within the time given by the Appellate Court, therefore, the orders granting probation to the petitioner were set aside and the appeal was dismissed. Resultantly, the petitioner's conviction and sentence has been upheld. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has [ 2 ] Crl. Rev. No. 475 of 2004 undergone four months of actual sentence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was ordered to be released on probation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the petitioner could not furnish the bonds within the time given by the Appellate Court and, therefore, his probation was set aside and he was ordered to undergo the sentence as imposed by the trial Court. Apart from the above, learned counsel has further submitted that the incidence took place on 23.9.1998 in which two drums of Lahan weighing 200 kgs. each were recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, a lenient view be taken while sentencing the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner does not challenge his conviction by the Courts below. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State who submits that as the quantity of Lahan recovered from the petitioner is much, therefore, no leniency in the sentence should be shown to the petitioner. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had already been ordered to be released on probation by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. However, the same was set aside as the petitioner failed to produce the bonds within the stipulated time as given by the Appellate Court. In case the petitioner would have submitted the bonds than he would have been released on probation. This obviously is one of the circumstances which call for reduction in the sentence. Apart from the above, the petitioner has already undergone approximately four months of imprisonment and also [ 3 ] Crl. Rev. No. 475 of 2004 faced a long and protracted trial of almost 11 years. Taking all the aforementioned factors into consideration, I uphold the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1) (b) of the Punjab Excise Act and reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a fine of Rs.10,000/- over and above the fine which he has already paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the fine is not deposited within the prescribed period than the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith and he shall serve the whole sentence as awarded by the Courts below. Revision is accordingly disposed of. 1.4.2009 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE