Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 706 (PNJ)

Saheg Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-07-06

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This Revision Petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.1.1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal whereby the petitioner having been guilty and convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 , was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof he was required to undergo RI for three months, as well as against the judgment dated 8.7.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned JMIC, so far as conviction is concerned, though the substantive sentence was reduced from RI or one year to RI for six months. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 6.1.1984 when a police party was present at Bus Stand Ballu, a secret information was received that the petitioner was used to distilling and selling illicit liquor in his tubewell kotha. The police party raided the tubewell kotha and caught the petitioner red handed when he was moving his hand in a drum containing 100 kilograms of lahan. The drum was sealed and taken into possession, the contents of which were got tested from the Excise Inspector and thereupon a formal FIR registered, investigation was carried out which led to the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, as referred to above. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not assail concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below in relation to the guilt of the petitioner and his consequential conviction. He, however, in order to invoke compassion for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the occurrence had taken place more than twenty years back in the year 1984; the petitioner was subjected to trial for a period of four years; he has remained under constant psycho pressure an account of his pending appeal and/or revision for the last over twenty years; the petitioner has also undergone actual sentence for 27 days and the case in question is the solitary offence attributed to him is as much as after his conviction vide impugned judgments, the petitioner had led a peaceful life like all law abiding citizens and has not been involved in any such like case. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this factual backdrop submits that it is a fit case for invoking the powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and to release the petitioner on probation. Reliance has been placed by him on the judgments of this Court in the case of Gurmail Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2003(1) RCR(Criminal) 196 and Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 729. 4. On the other hand, Sh. R.D. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the petitioners contention regarding invoking the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and contends that a heavy quantity of lahan having been recovered, the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, deserves to be maintained. 5. In Gurmail Singhs case (supra) the accused was sentenced for an offence under Section 326/324 IPC but having regard to the fact that he remained on bail for 12 years, the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act were evoked invoked and he was released on probation. 6. In Bachittar Singhs case (supra) the facts were somewhat similar as the accused in that case was convicted for an offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On a consideration of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1985 and his revision petition was admitted on 29.10.1990 when the accused was admitted to bail and thus he had enjoyed the concession of bail for a period of more than 13 years that this Court set aside his sentence and directed him to be released on probation. 7. In the case in hand the revision petition of the petitioner was admitted on August 1,1988 and execution of the sentence imposed on him was suspended and he was allowed bail to the satisfaction of the CJM, Karnal. More than 16 years have passed since then. 7. In the case in hand the revision petition of the petitioner was admitted on August 1,1988 and execution of the sentence imposed on him was suspended and he was allowed bail to the satisfaction of the CJM, Karnal. More than 16 years have passed since then. Having regard to the fact that there is no incriminating report against the conduct of the petitioner during the period of more than 16 years when he has availed the concession of bail and having regard to the principles culled out for invoking powers under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the judgments referred to above, this Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the sentence of RI of six months imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal is set aside and 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 CJM, Karnal. The petitioner is also directed to give an undertaking to keep peace and to be of good behaviour for one year and to appear and undergo sentence as and when called for. With these modifications the Revision Petition stands disposed of.