MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 109 dated 22.4.2003 registered under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short, 'the Act') at Police Station, Dhuri on the allegation that the petitioner was selling licit liquor was found in possession of two plastic canes of country made liquor one in each hand.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that on 22.4.2003, Sub Inspector Gelan Singh accompanied by other police officials, who were on patrolling duty near bus stand of Village Benra, received secret information that accused Major Singh son of Angrej Singh is selling country made liquor and if raid is conducted, recovery of country made liquor could be effected. Thereafter, he along with other police officials conducted raid at the house of the accused. The accused was found in possession of two plastic canes one in each hand. Out of each cane, 180 mls. was taken out as sample and remaining liquor was found equal to 29-3/4 bottles in each cane.

(3.) THOUGH , initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the findings of the Court below whereby he was convicted and sentences to undergo imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, however, finding it difficult in view of the statement of the Investigating Officer and also the report of Deputy Chemical Examiner, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not a habitual offender, he is not a person with previous criminal background and has not been involved in any further case thereafter, he faced the agony of trial before the Courts below for about five years and further that he has widow mother, wife and two minor children to support and being the sole bread-earner of the family, he should be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1959. He further submitted that after he was taken into custody, on rejection of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, he has already undergone actual imprisonment of one and half months. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Sudh Ram v. State of Punjab, 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 550; Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) 656; Krishan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 579; Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 310; Sultan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 328 and Jai Ram v. State of Haryana, 2005(3) RCR(Criminal) 597.