Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 408 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab

2000-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1988, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, who was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, and was directed to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo RI for three months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the on 18.3.1984, HC Mukhtiar Singh along with other police officials was holding a picket on the Rampura-Bathinda Road on the turning of road towards Maur. In the meantime, a jeep driven by the petitioner came there. It was stopped for checking. One Kundan Lal was also sitting in the Jeep. On search of the Jeep, 120 bottles of country wine liquor were recovered. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the same. A sample of 180 mls. was taken from each of the bottles. Samples and bottles were sealed with the seal bearing impression MS and the same were taken into possession along with Jeep No. DHC 391. Ruqa, Ex. PB, was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex. PB/1, was recorded and after completion of the investigation, the petitioner along with his co-accused Kundan Lal were challaned in the Court of the Area Magistrate. Kundan Lal did not appear despite proclamation, therefore, the proceedings continued against the petitioner. Copies of the documents were supplied to the petitioner. Charge under section 61(1)(a) of the Act was framed against the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 2. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined HC Mukhtiar Singh and HC Jarnail Singh. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PD and the affidavits of the formal witnesses, Ex. PE and PF, were also tendered into evidence. 3. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he has been falsely implicated. In defence the accused examined Surinder Pal Kohli as DS-1 and Constable Beldev Singh. 4. The petitioner denied those circumstances and stated that he has been falsely implicated. In defence the accused examined Surinder Pal Kohli as DS-1 and Constable Beldev Singh. 4. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul, vide judgment and order dated 10.10.1987 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as stated above. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, who vide judgment dated 5.8.1988, dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same the present revision by the petitioner. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgments and the grounds of revision and am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. The sole point which survives for determination is whether the petitioner shall be granted the benefit of probation or not. The petitioner is suffering the agony of criminal proceedings since 1984 and in this view of the matter, it is a fit case where the petitioner shall be granted the benefit of probation. Accordingly, the petitioner is released on probation provided he executes a personal bond surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year to the satisfaction of CJM, Bathinda. The petitioner shall undertake that during the period of probation, he will not commit any offence and shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour. If he commits any offence against the State, he will appear before the CJM in order to receive the sentence. 6. With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revision stands disposed of and a copy of this judgment be sent to the CJM concerned who shall send a notice to the petitioner and on receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall execute the bail bond surety bond within one month from the receipt of such notice. If the petitioner does not execute the bail bond surety bond as directed above, the revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed for all intents and purposes. Order accordingly.