AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 371 wordsUjagar Singh, J.
The petitioner was prosecuted for having about 20 kilogram of lahan in a pitcher, which was taken into possession by the police on 23rd January, 1983, when the police party headed by ASI Attar Singh of Police Station, Sadar, Rohtak was present in village Karontha, where secret information was received. The petitioner is said to have given the disclosure statement Ex. PA in pursuance on which the said pitcher of lahan was recovered. The lahan was found to be fit for distillation by the Excise Inspector.
On finding the petitioner guilty, the trial court sentenced him to undergo R.I. for mine months under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act and a fire of Rs. 400/ and in default of payment of this fine the petitioner was directed to suffer further R.I. for four months,
In appeal, the appellate court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence of R.I. from nine months to that of six months.
The petitioner still challenges illegality of the sentence by way of this revision. On merits, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner were found to be not tenable but going through the circumstances of this case issued notice only on question of sentence.
I have heard the counsel for the parties. The trial Court refused probation on the fact of poverty of the petitioner, as also a previous conviction The appellate Court did not consider the question of release on probation to the petitioner at all. According to the observations of the appellate court, on account of quantity of lahan, sentence was reduced.
The petitioner was found in possession of lahan on 23rd January, 1983 and he has undergone strain and harassment of prosecution and the proceedings thereafter for a period of about five and a half years. I, therefore, consider it to be a fit case for modifying the sentence awarded to him. I think it will meet the ends of justice if the sentence is reduced to that already undergone which comes to about one month and three days. However, the amount of fine is increased from 400/ to Rs. 1000/ with this modification this revision is dismissed.