SUNIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) for offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to SI of one year and a fine of Rs. 1500.00 vide judgment and order dated 17.1.1998 and 2.2.1998. His appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (A.S.J.) on 1.8.1998. The petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of these judgments of conviction and sentence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Moharar Malkhana with whom the case property was deposited has not been examined and Public Witness-6 another Malkhana Mohrar examined has not deposed that the case property has not been tampered with. And thus the link evidence is missing and the conviction is not valid and legal. Reliance has been placed by him on The State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram AIR 1980 SC 1314. It is also contended that all the 25 bottles alleged to have been recovered and seized should have been sent to the Analyst whereas only 7 bottles were sent. The conviction is thus illegal and not justified. For this reliance is placed on re, Subramaniam Gounder 1976 Crl.L.J. 1200. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner is a young boy of 22 years and the sentence is too harsh and excessive.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has contended that this court in revision cannot reappraise evidence; the finding of conviction is based on material on record, is reasonable and justified and the case has also been considered in detail by the appellate court and there is no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below.