Harpal Singh @ Kala vs State of Punjab

Arvind Kumar, J.—The petitioner was tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, u/s 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, on the allegation that on 01.04.2000, during a Naka held by ASI Harjit Singh along with other police officials, a three-wheeler bearing No.PB-08-2/5882 driven by Manjit Singh @ Nit� was stopped and found the petitioner sitting on cartons. On search, the same were found to be 15 cartons of country made liquor were for which the petitioner failed to show any licence or permit for keeping the same in his possession.

On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court held the accused-petitioner, Harpal Singh @ Kala, guilty u/s 61(1)(iii) of the Excise Act and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fin� of Rs. 1500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month. On appeal, the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the present revision.

At the time of hearing of this revision petition, the same was admitted qua quantum of sentence only.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner is facing the agony of protracted trial/appeal for the last more than 8 years. It has further been argued that the petitioner was not a previous convict and till date, he has undergone sentence of about 2 months and thus, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on probation. This, argument has been scanned. Keeping in view the long pendency of the case and the fact that it is not shown that the petitioner is a previous offender and has already undergone about 2 months of sentence, the ends of justice would be met if he is granted the benefit of probation. Even though a minimum sentence of one year is provided for manufacturing any intoxicants but in view of the dicta of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ishar Das Vs. The State of Punjab, , this cannot be a bar to the release of the petitioner on probation. In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585, a Full Bench of this Court also held that mere prescription of the minimum sentence u/s 61(1)(c) of the Act is no bar to the applicability of Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. The ratio of Isher Dass''s and Joginder Singh''s cases (supra) has also been followed in Pakhar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR 396. In this regard, reference he also made to a judgment of this Court in Surat Ram v. The State of Punjab. 2005(4) LH (P&H) 478.

For the afore-stated reasons, the revision petition is partly allowed. The order of conviction passed against the present petitioner is maintained whereas the order of sentence is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to he released on probation for a period of one year. He shall execute bonds to the tune of Rs.5000/- before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and tp appear and receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. The amount of fine already deposited shall he treated as costs of the proceedings.