Gurbax Singh vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is Criminal Revision against the order dated 16.10.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra whereby he maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs. 1000/ upon the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra vide order dated 17.4.1987 in case F.I.R. No. 2 dated 1.1.1985 under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act of P.S. Shahbad. This criminal revision has arisen in the following facts and circumstances.

On 1.1.1985, HC Mam Chand along with HC Ramji Lal and some constables was on patrol and excise checking in the revenue estate of village Salpani Kalan. HC Mam Chand received secret information against the accused (petitioner herein) that he was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor and selling it and if a timely raid was conducted at him, he could be found in possession of either lahan or illicit liquor in huge quantity. He drafted Ruqa, sent it to PS Shahbad for the registration of case against the petitioner on the basis of which case was registered. HC Mam Chand organised raid party and rushed to the dairy of the accused. On the way, Tehal Singh met him. He was joined. Accused was standing in front of his cattle shed. HC Mam Chand interrogated him. His interrogation yielded the recovery of two drums containing lahan weighing 80 kilograms and 20 kilograms respectively lying concealed in the fodder near his cattle shed. HC Mam Chand sealed each of the drums containing lahan. He took the sealed drums into possession vide seizure memo attested by the PWs. He prepared rough site plan. On return to police station, he handed over the sealed drums containing lahan to MHC. On 2.1.1985, Excise Inspector Jai Singh unsealed the drums and attested their contents. He found the same to be lahan fully fermented fit for distilling illicit liquor. After investigation, accused was challaned under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.

Accused was tried on the charge under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, who, on the conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default to further undergo RI for 2 months.

Aggrieved, accused knocked the door of the Court of Session in appeal. On appeal, learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence as indicated above vide order dated 16.10.1987.

His failure in the two courts below has not dampened his spirits. He has knocked the door of this court through this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously assailed the conviction of the accused before me. His main stress has been on the impropriety on the part of the two courts below who have failed to release him on probation of good conduct though he was first offender not addicted to the vice of crime and was also youthful.

Tehal Singh was given up at the trial as won over by the accused. The prosecution case has not suffered from any deficiency by the giving up of Tehal Singh PW as it is commonly seen that men from the public hardly come forward to depose against their fellow covillagers. Tehal Singh is co villager of the accused. How could he be expected to depose against the accused ? HC Mam Chand and HC Ramji Lal have supported the prosecution case through and through. Excise Inspector Jai Singh stated about the analysis carried out by him in PS Shahbad of the contents of the drums produced before him relating to this case. He stated that those were lahan fully fermented fit for distillation of illicit liquor.

I have not been able to lay my hands on any discrepancy whatsoever in the statements of the PWs. In my opinion, accused was rightly convicted by the two courts below.

Accused ought to have been released on probation of good conduct as he was not a previous convict and he was youthful also. As the accused was not a previous convict and was youthful also, I think he should not be sent to jail all at once. He is on the threshold of life. He should be given at least one opportunity to reform himself and follow the path of rectitude. So, conviction is maintained but having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is thought expedient to release him on probation of good conduct and it is, therefore, ordered that he shall be released on his entering into bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ together with one surety of the like amount for a period of two years to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He shall execute the necessary bonds before Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kurukshetra, on or before 31.5.1998. Fine imposed on the petitioner shall be towards the costs of the proceedings incurred in the trial of the petitioner by the State.

This revision is accepted to the extent indicated above.

Revision allowed.