Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) and is directed against the judgment dated 17th March, 1994, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepure and judgment dated 25th September, 1995, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore.

The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 17th March, 1994, convicted the petitioner under Section 61(1)(C) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ (in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months). It has been stated in the said judgment that the petitioner was found distilling liquor on a working still. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 25th September, 1995.

Notice of this petition was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab, on 29th September, 1995. On 11th December, 1995, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I did not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. The case was, however, adjourned on that day to 18th December, 1995 for arguments limited on the point of quantum of sentence.

Mr. Duggal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioner was registered on 13th October, 1989 and the petitioner had been facing trial for the last about six years. He further submitted that the petitioner was a poor person and he has not been convicted earlier. He also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26th September, 1995. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments :

(i) Baldev Singh v. The State of Haryana, 1985 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 45;

(ii) Baj Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985(2) RecentCR 199 ;

(iii) Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1994(1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 54 (Pb.)

(iv) Joginder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1995(3) RecentCR 299 .

Mr. Garg, learned AAG, however, submitted that the petitioner was caught redhanded distilling the illicit liquor on a working still and as such, he was not entitled to any relief.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner was found distilling the illicit liquor by means of a working still. I am, therefore, of the view that he is not entitled to the concession under the Probation of Offenders Act. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had been facing the trial for the last over six years, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice in case the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced from one year to six months. Accordingly, I reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner from one year to six months. The sentence of fine is, however, sustained. The view taken finds support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1441.

With this order, the revision petition stands disposed of.