Bhola Singh vs State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J.—This petition was admitted to a hearing to consider only the question of release of the petitioner on probation. His learned Counsel in this regard places firm reliance on the latest decision of this Court in Bakhtawar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1986) 1 Chand LR (Cri) 649, wherein the accused had been found guilty of possessing 40 bottles of illicit liquor and was released on probation for the following reasons:

The modern penology leans towards reforming a criminal and for that purpose legislature has enacted Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and precisely for that reason Section 360 was introduced in the Criminal P.C., 1973. If first offenders, who are of young age, are sent to prison, there is every likelihood of their becoming hardened criminals by coming into contact with such criminals. The petitioner is a first offender and was aged only 26 years.

As against this learned State counsel relies on the following observation of a Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, , where in a case u/s 61(1)(c)of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, a similar prayer for release on probation was declined. Their Lordships, after a reference to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, opined as follows:

It appears to be plain that what has been said above in the context of edible food and economic offences applies with even greater emphasis to the commercial production of illicit liquor illegally by running working stills. The dangers herein are inherent and sometimes more immediately fatal than those under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The spate of deaths resulting from the clandestine imbibing of poisonous illicit liquor, as often reported in the press provides a red-light signal. The legislative trend is again evident in enhancing the minimum sentence u/s 61(l)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- by the Amendment Act No. 31 of 1976. The following observations of my learned brother S. G. Mittal, J. in Harnam Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, are most apposite on this context:

...On principle prescribing of the minimum punishment may not deprive the court of its power to release a person on probation, but the fact remains that by so doing the legislature has clearly expressed its intention of punishing the offender with deterrent effect. It is common knowledge that illicit liquor is manufactured not only unscientifically but also under unhygienic conditions. Drinking of such liquor is hazardous to public health. The persons indulging in illicit distillation are motivated by greed of money to such an extent that they have no regard for human life. The other sordid aspect of this trade is that it is carried out by preparing schemes involving active participation of several persons. For the forgoing reasons the release of a person on probation indulging in illicit distillation of liquor has to be for very exceptional reason, which is lacking in this case. In the result it is not at all expedient to release Harnam Singh on probation.

It will be plain from the aforesaid catena of authorities that it is only in exceptional circumstances and for specific weighty reasons recorded that the broad policy of declining the benefit of probation to an accused person in these cases can be possibly deviated from.

The above noted observations of the Supreme Court and of the Full Bench were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who expressed the opinion in Bakhtawar Singh''s case (1986-1 Chand LR (Cri) 649) (supra).

Thus following the reasons in Joginder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, , with which indeed I am bound, I found no ground to release the petitioner on probation who has been found to be in possession of 35 bottles of illicit liquor merely on the ground that he happens to be a person of 22 years of age and as per the stand of his learned Counsel is a first offender. This petition thus fails and is dismissed.