STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMJI LAL DEVI SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents before us were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Narnaul, vide his order, dated 27-8-1966, under section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act. 1914 (Act 1 of 1914) for being found working a still for the distillation of illicit liquor at their residence, as also under Section 61 (1) (a) of the said Act for possession of a bottle of such liquor, but he imposed no punishment on them and released each one of them on probation of good conduct under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958 (Act XX of 1958) against a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- with one surety in the like amount on the undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of nine months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom a revision petition was filed against the said order recommended to this Court the acceptance thereof on the following grounds: 1. Crime of this nature is on the increase and is not always detected and has to be put down with a strong hand. Distillation of illicit liquor by such persons has been responsible for a huge loss of revenue to the State.

(2.) NO extenuating circumstance had been brought on the record to justify 'the lesser sentence of lenient treatment given to respondent No. 1' the punishment awarded to whom is grossly inadequate and who deserves the minimum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- as prescribed by the law. This reported revision came up for hearing in the first instance before my learned brother Koshal, J. . before whom a point was canvassed that in the case of offences like illicit distillation of liquor under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. which are not the result of any sudden temptation but involve previous preparation and are prompted by the large profits made by illicit distillation, provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, are not attracted. This point was canvassed before him on the strength of a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in the Crown v. Sujian Singh 19 Pun Re. Cri. 1916 : AIR 1916 Lah 189 on the basis of which paragraph 3 of Chapter 21 of Volume III of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court is also based, which paragraph reads as under:

(3.) SECTION 562 is not. as a rule, appropriate in the case of offences like illicit distillation of liquor sale, of cocaine, etc. , under the Excise and Opium Acts, which are not the result of any sudden temptation, but involve previous preparation and are prompted by the large profits made by illicit traffic in such articles, The Crown v. Piara Singh ILR 7 Lah 32 : AIR 1926 Lah 166 and The Crown v. Sujan Singh 19 Pun Re. Cri. 1916 : AIR 1916 Lah 189. The learned Single Judge doubted the correctness of the view of the decision in Sujan Singh case (supra), which, in fact, concerned with the application of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the offences of the kind and observed as follows: The later of the two authorities on which this paragraph is based was given in the year 1925 when the Probation of Offenders Act was nowhere in sight, it having been enacted 33 years later. Section 4 of the Act is materially different from section 562 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as the latter applies only to persons falling within specified age groups while the former is applicable to all convicts irrespective of age. In this view of the matter, paragraph 3 above-quoted does not in terms apply to cases falling under the Act. He was further of the opinion that since the emphasis these days is to reform the offenders, so it cannot be held that the Court in such cases has no option but to impose the punishment, even if in a given case the Court is of the opinion that reformatory measures would be more conducive and the imposition of punishment is not desirable. Since the learned Judge was not sure as to whether the principle of law enunciated in Sujan Singh case is correctly laid, which can be considered appropriate in its application even today, and since the matter was considered of great importance so he referred it for the decision by a larger Bench and that is how this revision petition has come up before us.