Jarnail Singh vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Petitioner''s Jarnail Singh and Mehal Singh were convicted under Section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months to each of them by judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat vide his order dated 4. 2. 1985. Their appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 17. 5. 1985. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed this revision.

Prosecution cast is that on 25. 1. 1933, Umed Singh, ASI alongwith other police officials was patrolling near Ganda Nila in the revenue estate of village Mehhmadpur. He received secret information that two persons were distilling illicit liquor by operating a working still under the pits. A ruqa was sent and a raiding party was formed which went to the relevant spot in pursuance of the secret information. Jarnail Singh and Mehal Singh appellants were found distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still. Working still was dismantled and after necessary investigation, they were challaned, tried and convicted as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Prosecution in support of its case examined Baljit Singh Nehra, AETO P.W. 1, Satpal Singh P.W. 2 and Umed Singh A. S. 1. P.W. 3. Baljit Singh Nehra P.W. I had tested the contents of the drum recovered from the spot and found the same to be lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. Satpal Singh P.W. 2 and Umed Singh ASI P W 3 have deposed about the actual seizure and the fact that they saw the petitioners, distilling illicit liquor.

Both the Courts below have discussed the prosecution evidence and accepted the same after giving reasons. No infirmity has been pointed out and I have no reasons to differ with the findings of Courts below.

The incident took place in January 1983. Jarnail Singh appellant is aged 22 years and Mehal Singh is aged 35 years. It is not disputed that they are not previous convicts. Taking the fact that they have been facing the prosecution for the last more thin 51/2 years and they are not previous convicts, I deem it expedient to allow them the benefit of probation. They are accordingly ordered to be released on probation of good conduct on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. J. M, Karnal undertaking to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period of one year of their executing the bonds and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. They are also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/ each as costs of the litigation. The amount of fine, if already paid, shall be adjusted towards the costs of the litigation. The bonds shall be furnishing within three months from the date of this order.

JUDGMENT accordingly.