SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 61(i)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act for having been caught red handed for distilling illicit liquor through a working still on 29.9.1983.

(2.) THE prosecution examined PW 1 Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh, PW 2 Excise Inspector P.D. Shant and PW 3 Constable Malkiat Singh. Independent witnesses were given up on the ground of having been won over by the petitioners. One Sucha Singh was cited as a witness, but not examined as such and was examined as defence witness by the petitioners. The prosecution story was believed by the trial Court and the petitioners were convicted under the aforesaid Section and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Trial Court refused the concession of probation on the ground that the illicit liquor was being distilled and consumption thereof affects the health of the individuals and ultimately, the social fabric of the society.

(3.) THE petitioners' counsel has put forth the same argument for seeking probation for the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is 70 years old and petitioner No. 2 is 25-year old. There is nothing on the file to show that they were previous convicts or had be antecedents. The policy of punishment has to be reformative and the society should own such persons as have some inclination towards penology to become better citizens by owning them as members of good society. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is that if petitioner No. 1 at this old age of 70 years has to undergo further incarceration, he may feel disgusted from society as a whole almost in the last days of his life. Similarly, the other petitioners is still at the young age of about 25 years and it is better to remove him from the society of criminals and he hopes to become a good citizens atleast after having undergone imprisonment for about three months. In view of the circumstances, I think it is better to give the petitioners an idea that the society has not discarded them and is prepared to accept them as members of good society with the hope that they will abandon any idea of committing even a minor offence. With that idea in view, while maintaining their conviction, I set aside the sentence awarded to them and direct them to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, on their entering into bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount and also to receive the sentence when called upon during the above period and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. Personal bonds and surety bonds be furnished within a month from their release from jail, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, failing which they will suffer the unexpected term of their sentence and also pay fine. Fine, if paid, be refunded, but the petitioners have to pay Rs. 500/- each as costs of litigation.