BHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition assails the judgment dtd. 19/12/2007, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc), Fast Court, Jalandhar vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 12/3/2005, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur in case FIR No.92, dtd. 15/8/2001 registered under Sec. 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Excise Act') at Police Station Goraya, was dismissed.

(2.) Vide judgment of conviction dtd. 12/3/2005, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur convicted the petitioner under Sec. 61(1)(c) of the Excise Act. Vide order of sentence of even date, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5000.00 was also imposed. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for thirty days.

(3.) SI Ashwani Kumar along with another police official, who was present in the area of Sangh Dhesian for patrolling duty on 15/8/2001, received a secret information and finding the same to be reliable, a raid was conducted and found the present petitioner Bhajan Singh distilling illicit liquor on a working still. The said still was dismantled. The components of the working still including drum of lahan containing 250 kgs. and a bottle of illicit liquor of 570 MI, were recovered. A sample of 180 ml was separated from the said bottle. Separate recovery memos were prepared and seals were applied. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared and submitted in Court. Charges were framed against the accused-petitioner under Sec. 61(1) (c) of the Excise Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as referred to in the opening part of the judgment. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc), Fast Court, Jalandhar, leading to the filing of the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the outset, Mr. M.S. Sachdev, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not challenge the judgment of conviction on merits. He, however, submits that for, the petitioner has undergone a protracted trial as FIR was registered against him in 2001, he was convicted vide judgment dtd. 12/3/2005 and even appeal preferred against the same was dismissed on 19/12/2007 after which the instant revision petition was filed in this Court, the sentence be modified to that already undergone by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has already undergone three months and five days imprisonment. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer stating that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be upheld. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. Concededly, FIR No.92 dtd. 15/8/2001 was registered under Sec. 61 of the Excise Act, at Police Station Goraya. The petitioner was put to trial in 2001 and he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dtd. 12/3/2005. His appeal against the said decision was dismissed on 19/12/2007. Ever since then, his revision petition has been pending in this Court. The petitioner has faced the agony of trial and pendency of his appeal/revision etc. for the last almost 24 years. He has already undergone sentence of three months and five days. There is no history of the petitioner being a previous offender. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending him to custody at this stage. 11. I have gone through the impugned judgments and on merits I do not find any reason to interfere in them. 12. However, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, while maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is modified to that already undergone by the petitioner.