Kashmir Singh vs State of Punjab

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

The petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, on February 7, 1990, and sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.

The case against the petitioner was that on May 28, 1986, he was intercepted by a police party comprising Head Constable Pawan Kumar and two constables and on suspicion his search was conducted. He was Found carrying a rubber tube which contained 100 battles of 750 Mls. of liquor. On testing, the sample revealed that it was liquor of illicit origin.

The petitioner''s appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, by order dated May 8, 1990.

The revision was admitted with regard to sentence only.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the Punjab Excise Act lays down a minimum punishment for the offence, it is open to the Court to release the petitioner on probation in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585 (F.B.). It was further contended that the petitioner is first offender and his family will face undeserved hardship as the petitioner is the main source of income for the family. Reference has also been made to Dilawar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987(1) RCR(Crl.) 652 (P&H) : 1987(2) CLR 382 in which the accused convicted under Section 61(1)(a) had been released on probation.

I have given the matter my earnest consideration. Apart from the fact that offences under the Excise Act are economic offences and are difficult to detect, the quantity involved is such that the broad indication is that it was not for personal consumption but or purposes of trading that the petitioner had in his possession 100 bottles of illicit liquor. In my view, it is a great imperative of social defence that such activities are curbed with a strong hand. It is not unoften that one hear''s of hooch tragedies involving large number of innocent persons mostly belonging to poor strata of society who either lose their lives or become blind. The petitioner is aged 18 and it cannot be said that he was too young to understand the implications of what the was about.

However, I find that the Courts below have imposed more than the minimum punishment prescribed by law. Accordingly, the imprisonment is reduced to the minimum prescribed by the statute namely six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/. The sentence is altered to the extent indicated and the revision petition is disposed of in these terms.