Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha vs The State of Punjab

Gurdev Singh, J.—This revision petition has been preferred by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha, Petitioner-accused, against his conviction and sentence u/s 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months by JMIC, Zira, vide his judgment dated 25.11.2002. The conviction and sentence was upheld by the appellate court in the appeal preferred by the accused. Now, he has come up with the present revision against that conviction and sentence.

It was on 10.5.1998, that Gurbhej Singh ASI, P.W. 4, while he was present along with Gurmit Singh HC, P.W. 3, and other police officials on the outer skirts of Basti Kaulianwala, received a secret information that the accused, who had his residence in the farm house, constructed in the fields, was in the habit of distilling illicit liquor and at that time also he was doing so with the help of the working still and could be caught red handed, in case a raid was conducted. On the receipt of that secret information, the ASI sent his ruqa Ex. P.4, to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. P.5 was recorded against the accused. The police party conducted a raid on the farm house of the accused and he was found distilling illicit liquor with the help of working still. The illicit liquor, which was distilled by him, was being collected in a bottle. The working still was dismantled and cooled. The said bottle was found to contain about 570 ml. of liquor, out of which 180 ml. was taken out in a nip as sample. The utensil, which was being used as boiler, contained about 20 kgs of lahan. The nip sample, the bottle and that utensil were sealed by the ASI with his seal "GS". The same and the other components of the working still were taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.3. The ASI prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery, Ex. P.6, with correct marginal notes and after coming back to the police station, deposited the case property with Jaswant Singh MHC, P.W. 5. On 11.5.1998, Mohinder Singh, Excise Inspector, P.W. 1, visited the police station and the above said utensil was produced before him by the MHC. After breaking upon the seal, he tested the contents thereof and found that it was fully fermented lahan, out of which some illicit liquor had already been distilled. The nip sample in the same condition was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 19.5.1998 and was delivered at that place with seals intact. After analysis, it was reported by Chemical Examiner, vide his report Ex. P 7, that the same contained illicit liquor. After completion of the investigation, the challan was put in before JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offence punishable u/s 61(1)(c) of the Act. He was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove his guilt, prosecution examined Mohinder Singh, Excise Inspector, P.W. 1, Karaj Singh, Constable, P.W. 2, Gurmit Singh HC, P.W. 3, Gurbhej Singh, P.W. 4 and Jaswant Singh MHC, P.W. 5. After the close of the evidence by the prosecution, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him in order to enable him to explain the same. He denied all those circumstances and pleaded that no such recovery was effected from him. He was called upon to enter on his defence but he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

Counsel for the Petitioner-accused did not assail the conviction, so recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. He submitted that the accused was not a previous convict and the benefit of probation should have been granted to him. After his conviction, he has already undergone sentence for a period of three months and has stood protracted trial for 13 years. He has already learnt a lesson and the benefit of probation be extended to him.

The prosecution neither alleged nor proved any previous conviction against the accused. As per the submission made by his counsel, he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months. He stood protracted trial for a period of more than 10 years. At the time of his conviction, he was about 40 years of age and must have crossed 50 years by now. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, I think it proper and expedient to release him on probation in stead of sentencing him at once to any punishment. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon him is set aside and he is ordered to released on probation on his executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety in the like amount for the period of two years, to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during that period and to keep peace and be of good behaviour in the meanwhile. He is directed to pay of Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of the prosecution. The fine, if already deposited, shall be adjusted towards those costs. The bonds to be furnished and the costs are to be paid before the trial court within a period of three months of the passing of this order failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.

Records of the trial court be returned forthwith.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.