Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1641 (PNJ)

Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-12-06

S.S.SARON

body2003
ORDER S.S. Saron, J. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.9.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence by the learned Trial Magistrate dated 12.2.1990 was dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1940 (for short the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. This order of conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which as already noticed, is assailed in this petition. 2. Shri P.S. Hundal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing the case for some time on merit and realising that he would not be able to convince the court as regards the conviction of the petitioner, confined his argument for release of the petitioner on probation in view of the long delay after the occurrence. 3. In response, Shri Satinder Singh Randhawa, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the State, however, opposed the release of the petitioner on probation on the ground that 70 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the order of sentence is liable to be maintained. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. As already noticed, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, which reads as under :- "61. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession etc. - (1) Whoever, in contravention of any section of this Act, or of any rule, notification issued or given thereunder or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under this Act, - (a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant; or (b) ...... (c) ...... shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (three years) (and with fine upto to (twenty five thousand rupees) (-----)" 6. (c) ...... shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (three years) (and with fine upto to (twenty five thousand rupees) (-----)" 6. A reading of the above Section shows that whoever in contravention of any section of the Act or any rule, notification issued or given thereunder or order made, or of any license, permit or pass granted under the Act imports, export, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant shall be punished for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and the fine which may extend upto Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 7. This Court in the case of Gurmail Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 196 ordered the release of the accused on probation in a case relating to an offence under Section 326/324 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the accused therein had remained on bail for 12 years. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone travails of the criminal trial and prosecution from the date of the occurrence i.e. 18.7.1985. The revision petition was admitted on 29.10.1990 and the petitioner was ordered to be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The revision petition has been pending in this Court since then. In these circumstances and keeping in view the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, I am of the view that it would not be just and proper to now send him to jail after such a long span of time. 8. Accordingly, the sentence of one year imposed on the petitioner shall stand set aside and at the same time, it is directed that the petitioner be released on probation on his furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called for. With this modification in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, the petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.