LAWS(P&H)-1983-4-52

SHIV LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On April 26, 1983
SHIV LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a young man aged about 21122 years, was convicted under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had in his possession 45 bottles of illicit liquor. The quantity being large attracted on him a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and an order of payment of Rs. 1,000/ - as fine.

(2.) IN appeal before Shri V. K. Jain, II Additional Sessions Judges, Narnaul, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction prayed for a lenient view to be taken in view of the comparative youth of the petitioner. The learned Judge then reduced the sentence of the petitioner to one month's rigorous imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/ -, in default six months rigorous imprisonment. Surprisingly, the learned Judge, instead of sending the petitioner to prison, chose to release him on bail enabling him to file the present the present petition in this Court. Herein now, it deserves pertinent mentioning that been conferred the power to grant bail, other conditions satisfying, under learned Judge unaccountably took such a step for which there was no warrant in law.

(3.) ON revision to this Court, the bail of the petitioner in The circumstances had to be extended, for Surinder Singh J. took the view that the sentence of the petitioner needed reconsideration and a report of the, Probation Officer concerned need be requisitioned. The said report has arrived. According to the Probation Officer, the petitioner was previously dealing in illicit liquor and he had contacts with the police. Now, statedly, the petitioner had left the business of illicit liquor and had started selling milk and thenceforth had disassociated himself from the police after the recovery of the present liquor (pages 5 and 6 of the report). All the same, the Probation Officer has recommended the release of the petitioner on probation with supervision under section 4 (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.