Sadhu Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.

The petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act for having been caught redhanded for distilling illicit liquor through a working still on 29.9.1983.

The prosecution examined PW1 Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh, PW2 Excise Inspector PD Shant and PW3 Constable Malkiat Singh. Independent witnesses were given up on the ground of having been won over by the petitioners. One Suchha Singh was cited as a witness, but not examined as such and was examined as defence witness by the petitioners. The prosecution story was believed by the trial Court and the petitioners were convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The trial Court refused the concession of probation non the ground that the illicit liquor was being distilled and consumption thereof affects the health of the individuals and ultimately, the social fabric of the society.

The petitioners filed an appeal which was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and was 0dismissed with no change in the sentence. The appeal was decided on 31.7.1987. Since then they have remained in custody and have undergone more than 3 months. Vide order dated 9.9.1987, passed by Pritpal Singh, J., notice regarding sentence was given, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the judgment in Dharam Singh''s case 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 132 decided by B.S. Yadav, J. (as he then was).

The petitioners'' counsel has put forth the same argument for seeking probation for the petitioner. Petitioner No. 1 is 70 yeas old and petitioners No. 2 is 25 years old. There is nothing on the file, to show that they were previous convicts or had bad antecedents. The policy of punishment has to be reformative and the society should own such persons as have some inclination towards penology to become better citizens by owning them as members of good society. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is that if petitioner No. 1 at this old age of 70 years has to undergo further incarceration, he may feel disgusted from society as a whole almost in the last days of his life. Similarly, the other petitioner is still the young age of about 25 years and it is better to remove him from the society of criminal and he hopes to become a good citizen least after having undergone imprisonment for about three moths. In view of the circumstances, I thing it is better to give the petitioners an idea that the society has not discarded them and is prepared to accept them as members of good society with the hope that they will abandon of any idea of committing even a minor offence. With that idea in view, while maintaining their conviction, I set aside the sentence awarded to them and direct them to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, on their entering into bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount and also to receive the sentence when called upon during the above period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Personal bonds and surety bonds be finished within a month from their release from jail, to the satisfaction of he trial Court, failing, which they will suffer the unexpired term of tier sentence and also pay fine. Fine, if paid, be refunded, but the petitioners shall have to pay Rs. 5,00/ each as costs of litigation.

JUDGMENT accordingly.