Baj Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

B.S. Yadev, J.—It is not necessary to narrate the prosecution version in detail because this revision petition is limited to the question of sentence. Suffice it to say that on 6th October, 1980. 7 tubes containing illicit liquour were recovered from a jeep which was driven by Baj Singh petitioner. Out of these 4 tubes were lying near Bnaj Singh while the remaining tubes were lying in the rear portion of the jeep where Pritam Singh petitioner was found sitting. Four tubes contained 75 bottles each of illicit liquour while 3 tubes recovered from the rear portion of the jeep contained 80 bottles each. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ferozepur, who tried the case convicted each of the petitioner under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. The appeal filed by the convict persons was heard by Additional Session Judge, Ferozepur. It did not meet with any success.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argument that the judgment of the trial Court dated 17the November, 1982 show that Pritam Singh petitioner was 20 years old and therefore, at the time of the commission of the offence he must be about 18 years. He argued that section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act lays down an injunction as distinguishable from the discretion under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, not to impose sentence of imprisonment upon an offender who is below 21 years of age unless for reason to be recorded by it, the Court finds it undersiable to proceed with him under section 3 and 4 of the Act. I am of the opinion that the above argument has force. There is nothing on the file to show that Pritam Singh petitioner has bad antecedents disentitling him to the benefits of the Act. He was just a young boy at the time of the commission of the offence. If such a person is sent to jail he will become a hardened criminal by coming into contact with such criminals.

In the present case the report of the Probation Officer has not been called for but from subsection (2) of section 6 of the act it is clear that for releasing an offender on probation it is not necessary to send for the report. The report is necessary only when the Court tentatively holds a view that the offender should not be released on probation.

Hence considering the age of Pritam Singh petitioner at the time of the commission of the offence, I set aside his sentence of imprisonment and fine and direct that he be released under section 4 of the act upon his entering into bonds in he sum of Rs. 2000/ with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence by the trial Court whenever called upon to do so within a period of one year from the date of this order and to keep peace and be of good behavior during this period. If the father of the petitioner is alive, the surety bond will be filed by his father in the above amount. The said petitioner is also ordered to pay Rs. 500/ to the State as costs of the proceedings. The above bonds be filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of 2 months from today failing which his revision shall stand dismissed and he will have to undergo his unexpired period of sentence of imprisonment and shall also pay the fine imposed upon him and shall also undergo further rigorous imprisonment in case of default payment of fine.

As far as Baj Singh petitioner is concerned, I do not find any ground to reduce his sentence. He is aged 35 year. Huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the jeep which was being driven by him; Trafficking in illicit liquor is an economic offence as well as an offence against the society. Hence he is not entitled to be released on probation. Therefore, as far as Baj Singh petitioner is concerned, the present petition shall stand dismissed.