BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Buta Singh has filed this revision petition against the order dated 20.5.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short, the Act) was dismissed and he ws ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sen'tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) ON 16.3.1990, a police party headed by ASI Balbir Singh apprehended the petitioner and his co-accused Mukhtiar Singh, who has since died, while they were distilling the illicit liquor by means of a working still. After they were taken into police custody, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement which resulted in recovery of 100 Kgs of lahan fixed for distillation of illicit liquor and on investigation, formal case FIR Exhibit PB/1 was registered and investigation was conducted. After investigation, challan was filed and charge was framed against the petitioner on 21.9.1990 for having committed the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Magistrate, after concluding the trial on examining the witnesses found the petitioner guilty for having committed the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act for which he was charged. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which as already noticed above, was dismissed on 20.5.1993 and petitioner was ordered to be taken into custody on the said date The petitioner thereafter filed this petition which was admitted on 17.6.1993 and sentence during the pendency of the petition was ordered to be suspended.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case for some time on merit states that the case be considered for release of the petitioner on probation inasmuch as a period of almost 10 years has lapsed during the pendency of the revision in this Court, besides, the occurrence itself is of the year 1990 and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in sending back the petitioner to custody at this stage.