MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Singh aged 23 years, Balwant aged 18 years and Balbir aged 22 years, petitioners were convicted under Section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 for distilling illicit ligour by operating a working still on 6th of January 1985 and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting convict was further ordered to undergo three months simple, imprisonment vide order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Narwana dated 11th of July 1999. Appeal filed by the said convicts against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by Sessions Judge Jind, vide, his order dated 16th of September 1989.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, all the three convicts have filed the present petition which was admitted only qua quantum of sentence awarded to them as well as for consideration whether benefit of Probation of Offenders Act can be granted to them or not. Counsel for the parties were heard.

(3.) THE age of the petitioners as mentioned in the judgment of the trial court would indicate that all the three petitioners were bellow 21 years of age at the time when they were apprehended while operating the working still on 6th of January 1985. All the three petitioners are not previous convicts and are first offenders. Taking into consideration the age, antecedents as well as the nature of recovery effected from them, in my opinion, it is a fit case to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners, in order to give them an opportunity to reform themselves and prove to be good citizens in future. Mere fact that minimum sentence has been provided for commission of offence under Section 61 (1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, in my view would not be sufficient to deprive the petitioners from the beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, keeping in view that the age of the petitioners was below 21 years at the time of commission of said offence. I find support, in my view, from the Full Bench Authority of this court in Joginder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 Chandigarh Law Reporter page 197 wherein it is held as under : It deserves highlighting that the provisions of Section 360 of the Code in itself laid down the limitation within which it is to operate. It is attracted as regards persons above 21 years of age only when the conviction is for an offence punishable with fine only, or, with imprisonment for a term of seven years or less. As regards persons below 21 years of age or any woman, the provision is a little more liberal, and can be applied even for conviction of an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if no previous conviction is proved against the offender. It would, therefore, be evident that Section 360 of the Code itself refers only to the maximum sentences provided for the offence for which an accused person may be convicted with regard to its applicability. Its provisions do not lay down anywhere that in the case of the prescription of minimum sentence Section 360 of the Code would not be applicable. It may, therefore, be inapt to impose such a bar by a process of interpretation, when the provisions of the section, whilst prescribing its applicability, have laid down no such limitation." It was further observed as follows :