IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 472 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2011 Surjit Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, A. A.G., Punjab, for the respondent-State. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This revision petition is filed by the revisionist- petitioner against judgment dated 09.02.1011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, as well as judgment/order dated 16.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- CRR No.472 of 2011 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner. He further states that since sentence awarded is one year, hence, petitioner is liable to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is the first time offender and he is in jail w.e.f. 09.02.2011. He has placed reliance of this Court in the matter of Harpal Singh @ Kala vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 866 and Billu Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 52 where the accused in an offence punishable under Section 61 of the Excise Act, was released on probation by extending the benefit of probation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year for an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. Admittedly, he is first time offender. Sending the first time offender to jail in the company of hardcore criminals seems to be unjustified. First time offender must be given a chance to reform by releasing him on probation for the period of one year. 2 CRR No.472 of 2011 Applying the principles and ratio in the judgments of Billu Singh and Harpal Singh (supra) and considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that petitioner be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of one year on furnishing his personal bond and undertaking with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court that he will keep peace and be of good behaviour. In case he is found to be indulged in such like illegal activities, sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand revived automatically. However, fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount, within one month from today, with the Trial Court. It is made clear that in case enhanced amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order of the Court below shall sand revived automatically. With above mentioned modification, this revision petition stands disposed of. April 28, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3 CRR No.472 of 2011 4