Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 662 (PNJ)

Buta Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-05-07

S.S.SARON

body2003
ORDER S.S. Saron, J. - Petitioner-Buta Singh has filed this revision petition against the order dated 20.5.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short, the Act) was dismissed and he ws ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. On 16.3.1990, a police party headed by ASI Balbir Singh apprehended the petitioner and his co-accused Mukhtiar Singh, who has since died, while they were distilling the illicit liquor by means of a working still. After they were taken into police custody, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement which resulted in recovery of 100 Kgs of lahan fixed for distillation of illicit liquor and on investigation, formal case FIR Exhibit PB/1 was registered and investigation was conducted. After investigation, challan was filed and charge was framed against the petitioner on 21.9.1990 for having committed the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. The learned trial Magistrate, after concluding the trial on examining the witnesses found the petitioner guilty for having committed the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act for which he was charged. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which as already noticed above, was dismissed on 20.5.1993 and petitioner was ordered to be taken into custody on the said date The petitioner thereafter filed this petition which was admitted on 17.6.1993 and sentence during the pendency of the petition was ordered to be suspended. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case for some time on merit states that the case be considered for release of the petitioner on probation inasmuch as a period of almost 10 years has lapsed during the pendency of the revision in this Court, besides, the occurrence itself is of the year 1990 and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in sending back the petitioner to custody at this stage. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the State, however, contends that the petitioner is not liable to be released on probation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone about one month of sentence after his conviction by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, till he was granted bail by this Court. The sentence otherwise awarded to the petitioner is of 6 months imprisonment. Section 61(1)(a) of the Act provides that whoever imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant in contravention of any Section of the Act or of any rule, notification issued or given thereunder or made or of any licence, permit or pass granted under the Act shall be punishable for every such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine upto twenty five thousand rupees. The proviso to Section 61(1) of the Act is in relation to certain higher degree of offences which are not applicable in the case in hand. Besides, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has undergone the travails of prosecution and trial for a period of almost 10 years. Moreover, he has undergone about a month after his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 20.5.1993 and this petition was admitted and sentence suspended on 17.6.1993. The co-accused of the petitioner Mukhtiar Singh has also died. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of probation subject to his being of good behaviour for a period of one year. 7. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the order of conviction, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner shall execute bonds to the satisfaction of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala with an undertaking to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear to receive the sentence during the said period as and when called upon to do so. The amount of fine shall be treated as costs of the proceedings. The petition is partly allowed accordingly. Petition partly allowed.