Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 229 (PNJ)

Sham Lal v. State Of Punjab

2006-01-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2006
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Sham Lal was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide impugned judgment dated 2.3.2004, under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act for being found in his possession 487 bags (bottles) of country made liquor without any permit or licence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal. Vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 28.11.2005, the appeal filed by the petitioner also stands dismissed on all the count. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not join issue of the merits of the case and instead has prayed for showing a lenient tilt towards quantum of sentence stating that the petitioner is not a previous convict. He is of age of 41 years having minor children. He then submits that he is the only bread winner of the family. 3. In support of his aforesaid arguments on the point of reduction in the quantum of sentence, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Chief rendered in Criminal Revision No. 1706 of 2004, Rajbir v. State of Haryana, decided on Aug. 27, 2004 in which this Court while deciding the aforesaid revision petition had released the petitioner (accused) on his furnishing probation bond. However, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and subsequently, converted into cost of the proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of Probation of Offenders Act. 4. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the learned State Counsel, who submits that the recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is heavy and as such, he does not deserve the aforesaid relief. 5. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has not joined the issue of merits, yet I have gone through both the impugned judgments and find no flaw in the same either on facts or law. The conviction as recorded by both the same either on facts or law. The conviction as recorded by both the Courts below is, therefore, upheld. 6. I do find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to quantum of sentence. 7. The conviction as recorded by both the same either on facts or law. The conviction as recorded by both the Courts below is, therefore, upheld. 6. I do find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to quantum of sentence. 7. Both the Courts below have not granted the relief of probation to the petitioner simply on the ground that the recovery effected from him is of heavy quantity, but in my view, the view taken in the case of Rajbir v. State of Haryana (supra) comes at the rescue of the petitioner. 8. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is not a previous convict and the fact that he has minor children, ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence imposed upon him is set aside and instead he is released on probation for a period of one year on his furnishing personal/surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court. It is so ordered. It is, however, made clear that the bonds to be submitted before the learned counsel shall be without supervision of the Probation Officer. 9. The amount of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, already imposed upon the petitioner, is, however, enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. It is converted into the cost of the proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- is stated to be deposited by the petitioner in the trial Court itself before filing the appeal. The said amount shall now be adjusted towards the enhanced amount. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount at the time of furnishing the requisite bond before the trial Court. In case of default of aforesaid amount, the petitioner shall undergo the entire sentence as already awarded. 10. With the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated hereinabove, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. Office is directed to inform the concerned quarters without any delay.