RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dtd. 22/9/2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in CRA/21/2019 titled M/s Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, vide which appeal filed against the judgment and order of sentence dtd. 5/1/2019 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has been dismissed vide which he was held guilty and convicted under Sec. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1.00 lakh with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine in case arising out of FIR No.97 dtd. 13/5/2014 registered under Sec. 61/1/14 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station City Rajpura.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 13/5/2014, HC Harjinder Singh along with other police officials was present at Sirhind Bye Pass, G.T. Road, Rajpura, in connection with patrolling duty when a secret information was received that accused Rakesh Kumar son of late Som Nath, resident of Guru Nanak Nagar, Nalas Road, Rajpura keeps liquor in his house and sells the same without any permit or licence. On the basis of said information, ruqa was sent and raid was conducted at the house of accused. On checking, 15 boxes of liquor make First Choice were found lying in the store of said house. The liquor of above said bottles was transferred into four plastic cans and four sample nips were drawn. The sample nips, four canny plastics and 180 empty bottles were sealed by IO. Sample seal was prepared separately. The case property i.e. sample nips, four canny plastics and 180 empty bottles were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on return to the police station, case property was deposited with MHC concerned. Accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, final report was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) Today learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the outset that petitioner does not press the revision on merits against the judgment of conviction and that petitioner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submitted that appellant would be satisfied, in case his sentence is reduced or benefit of probation is extended in his favour. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2014. Petitioner has already undergone more than two months of sentence out of sentence of three years awarded to him after dismissal of the appeal. He is not involved in any other case and his sentence may be reduced by taking a lenient view.