SUKHWINDER SINGH @ SUKHA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha, Petitioner -accused, against his conviction and sentence under Section 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.

(2.) 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.

(3.) 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.