Narpat Singh and another vs The State of Punjab

Petitioners, namely, Narpat Singh and Deepak Kumar have filed

the present revision petition challenging the judgment dated 20.05.2017

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby their appeal

filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

24.02.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, was

dismissed.

Learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2015

convicted both the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 61(i)(a)

of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short, the Excise Act ) and sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight months and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.2008,

ASI Rakesh Kumar along with other police officials was present in the area

of Pachranga Chowk, Rajpura. In the meanwhile, an Innova car bearing

registration No.PB-65G-0349 containing three persons came from the side

of under bridge. The vehicle was signalled to stop. But on seeing the police

party, one of the said persons absconded from the spot and remaining two

persons were apprehended by the police.

On inquiry, the driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as

Narpat Singh, whereas the other person disclosed his name as Deepak

Kumar. The vehicle was searched and 19 boxes of Macdowel, 18 boxes of

Bagpiper and 3 boxes of Royal Stag liquor were recovered by the police.

After arranging 4 plastic cans of 100/100 liters and one plastic can of 40

liters, the liquor of bottles was poured into those plastic cans. Sample nip of

180 Ml. each from each of the plastic cans were separated. Sample parcels

and the bulk parcels were sealed by the investigating officer with his seal

bearing impressions ''RK''. The case property was taken into possession vide

separate recovery memo and the seal after use was handed over to HC

Gurnam Singh.

The investigating officer sent Ruqa to the Police Station, on the

basis of which the FIR No.166 dated 23.07.2008 under Section 61 of the

Excise Act was registered against the accused at Police Station City Rajpura.

Both the accused were arrested. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was

prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.

After completion of investigation, Challan was presented in the

Court. Copies of challan were supplied to the petitioners-accused free of

costs as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.PC. Thereafter, the accused were

charge-sheeted by the trial Court for the commission of offence under

Section 61(i)(a) of the Excise Act to which they did not plead guilty and

claimed trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined as many

as 7 witnesses including investigating officer ASI Rakesh Kumar as PW7.

Thereafter, the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were

recorded wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them and

pleaded false implication and innocence. However, no evidence in defence

was led by both the accused.

Considering the evidence so adduced, the trial Court vide its

judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 had convicted and sentenced the

petitioners in the manner as mentioned above.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal against

the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the Court of

Session, but the same was also dismissed by learned appellate Court vide

judgment dated 20.05.2017.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed the

present revision petition.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has not

challenged the conviction of petitioners and confined his arguments qua the

quantum of sentence only. He has submitted that the petitioners are facing

the agony of criminal proceedings since 23.07.2008 i.e. the date when the

FIR in question was registered. They are poor persons and are first time

offenders. As against the awarded sentence of eight months, they have

already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than two months. He

has further submitted that the amount of fine has already been paid by the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that

the petitioners are not involved in any other case and, therefore, the sentence

awarded to them be reduced to the period already undergone. He has

referred to the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Revision

No.2895 of 2015 decided on 23.09.2015, titled as Gurmail Singh v. State of

Punjab to contend that in the similar circumstances this Court has reduced

the sentence of the petitioner in that case to the period already undergone.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, though has not

disputed the custody of the petitioner, but has argued that learned trial Court

has already taken a lenient view regarding the sentence of petitioners. Thus,

no interference is warranted in the quantum of sentence.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below, this

Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated

the evidence on record while holding the petitioners guilty for commission

of offence under Section 61(i)(a) of the Excise Act. The appellate Court has

also rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the

findings given by both the Courts below which may warrant interference of

this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, learned

counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and

restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of

the petitioners is, therefore, affirmed.

So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, while dealing

with the case of Gurmail Singh (supra), this Court has relied upon Sukha

Singh @ More v. State of Punjab 2010 (4) Law Herald 3218 wherein in the

similar circumstances, on the alleged recovery of 60 Kgs Lahan, 5? bottles

as illicit liquor, the petitioner was convicted and thereafter, released on

probation on completion of one month substantive sentence as against the

awarded sentence of one year.

Further, in the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 (2)

Law Herald 1648 where the trial Court has convicted the accused to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and the accused was a first time

offender, this Court has held that sending a first time offender to jail in the

company of hardcore criminals would be unjustified. Accordingly, sentence

of the accused in that case was ordered to be undergone despite he being in

custody for about two months as against the awarded sentence of one year.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners are first time offenders, has not been refuted by learned State

counsel. The FIR in question was registered in the year 2008 and since then,

the petitioners are suffering the protracted trial. They have already

undergone imprisonment for more than two months as against the awarded

sentence of eight months.

Therefore, while relying upon aforesaid judgments and taking a

lenient view in the matter, this Court feels that ends of justice will be met if

the substantive sentence of the petitioners is reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

Ordered accordingly.

Both the petitioners be released forthwith, if not required in any

other case subject to payment of fine, if already not deposited.

With the aforesaid modification in the substantive sentence of

the petitioners, the present revision petition stands dismissed.