Jit Singh vs The State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.—Jit Singh petitioner and Balwinder Singh were convicted u/s 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Zira and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur after elaborately appraising the evidence upheld their conviction and sentence of the petitioner but ordered the release of Balwinder Singh on probation. Jit Singh has now come up by way of this revision.

Shri Meja Singh Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to seriously dislodge the considered findings of the two Courts below. The conviction of the petitioner has been rested primarily on the evidence of Head Constable Parminder Singh P.W. 1 and Head Constable Hari Singh P.W. 2 Both the Courts below have held these witnesses to be completely disinterested and they have not been shown to have any hostility or animus against the petitioner to falsely implicate him on a serious charge.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the provisions of Section 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure urged that the petitioner be released on a personal bond with a surety as he is not a previous convict. In support of his submission, he made reference to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 79 P.L.R. 580 and one decision of Mital, J. of this Court reported in Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 Cr. L.T. 10.

While from the Supreme Court decision is Nirmal Singh''s (supra) it is not clear as to what kind of facts were involved therein as Bhagwati, J. merely said that to the facts of that case the previsions of Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were clearly attracted and since the trial Court had not applied its mind regarding the application of the provisions aforesaid, so in that case the order deserved to be set aside. With these observations, the order was set aside and the accused was released on his entering into a bond with one surety.

Gurbachan Singh''s case (supra) arose from conviction u/s 9 of the Opium Act. That decision as also a subsequent decision by the same Judge in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 C.L.R. (P&H) 247 is not an authority for the proposition that the provisions of sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory in the sense that whatever may be the circumstances if the requirements of these provisions are satisfied, then the accused cannot be sentenced to imprisonment. I am clearly of the view that smuggling, food adulteration, offences under the Excise and Opium Acts and other economic offences are the only cases where the sentence of imprisonment and its severity holds out a deterrent effect on the person engaging himself in such activities as to calculate his benefit and loss, for in regard to crimes committed either In rage or in passion, the severity of sentence is no deterrence The economic offences are on the increase by leaps and bounds and therefore, the provisions of sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be applied to such cases only in very rare and exceptional cases. The case in hand in my opinion is not of that kind.

There is however, a mariginal scope for reduction in the sentence imposed in view of the fact that the offence was committed as far back as 1974 and the petitioner has been granted bail at the stage of admission on 18th September, 1975. I would accordingly reduce his sentence of imprisonment to six months, rigorous imprisonment as I feel that it would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine with its default clause is, however maintained.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision petition is dismissed.