Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of Criminal Revisions nos.596 and 597 of 1992, filed by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated August 05, 1992, passed by Sh. P. K. Jain, the then additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. 2. The petitioner was initially convicted by Sh. Gurdev Chand, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated september 30, 1991, for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (1) (c) and 61 (1) (b) of the Punjab Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) and he was sentenced to undergo R. I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo r. I for six months under Sec.61 (1) (c) of the Act and was separately sentenced to undergo R. I for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I for one month under section 61 (1) (b) of the Act. He had filed two appeals, which were dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated August 05, 1992, passed by sh. P. K. Jain, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. The conviction and the sentence were maintained. Feeling aggrieved against the afore-stated judgments, he has filed these Criminal Revision Petitions. 3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on February 19, 1989, a police party headed by Naginder Singh, Sub Inspector, conducted raid in the bet area. They spotted three fire-lights. The area was encircled. Three working stills were captured. One was operated by mangal Singh (petitioner ). The other was operated by Sewa Singh. The third was operated by Gurdip Singh. The still operated by the petitioner was dismantled. All its component parts were taken into possession. Liquor was being distilled.180 Mls liquor was taken out as sample and was sealed in a nip. The remaining distilled liquor was measured, which came to 15 bottles and 570 Mls liquor was put in the 16th bottle. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P. B. The prosecution version further is that the petitioner was interrogated when he was in police custody. He made disclosure statement that he had kept lahan, which he offered to get recovered. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing. He then got recovered 150 Kgs lahan. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit P. B. The prosecution version further is that the petitioner was interrogated when he was in police custody. He made disclosure statement that he had kept lahan, which he offered to get recovered. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing. He then got recovered 150 Kgs lahan. Two separate criminal cases under first Information Reports Nos.37 and 38, one for working a still and the other for possession lahan for the distillation of liquor, were got registered against him. Charge was framed against the petitioner for the offences, mentioned above, to which he had not pleaded guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, at the trial, had examined P. W.1 Barinder singh, Excise Inspector, P. W.2 Sham Dass, Assistant Sub Inspector and p. W.3 Naginder Singh, Sub Inspector. They had proved the various documents, which are on the file. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution allegations and complained of his false implicity in the case. He had examined in defence D. W.1 swaran singh of Villager Bhalojla. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and of the assistant Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, have been heard and the evidence has been scrutinised with their help. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Ld. Judicial magistrate and by the lower appellate Court. He submitted that lenient view be taken against the petitioner regarding sentence. It is submitted that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for 34 days, from February 19, 1989 to February 20, 1989, from September 30, 10991 to October 04, 1991 and from August 05, 1992 to September 02, 1992. He is a poor labourer and is the sole bread-earner. There is no other case against him since February 19, 1989. The petitioner has already suffered a lot due to protracted trial. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, the impugned judgments of conviction are maintained. However, his sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. The petitioner would deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court at Kapurthala within two months from today. Except for this modification in the sentence order, these revisions petitions are dismissed. However, his sentence is reduced to that already undergone by him. The sentence of fine with its default clause is maintained. The petitioner would deposit the amount of fine in the trial Court at Kapurthala within two months from today. Except for this modification in the sentence order, these revisions petitions are dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.