Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2048 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar Alias Bittu v. State Of Punjab

2007-11-22

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 9.10.2007 passed by Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.9.2006 convicting the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated the story of the prosecution is that on 17.7.2002, when ASI Naresh Kumar along with other police officials was present at check point Addi Khui near village Athola, the petitioner was intercepted while driving an Esteem Car and on search of his car, 17 cases of whisky make `Everyday Prestige, each case containing 12 bottles, were recovered. 12 bottles of each case were put into a tub, which was stured thoroughly and, thereafter, sample of 180 mls was taken and the same procedure was repeated with respect to the remaining 16 cases. Thereafter, the samples and the remainder were sealed separately by ASI Naresh Kumar with his seal `NK and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PA. Car was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PB, ruqa Ex. PC was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC-1, was registered and rough site-plan Ex. PD was also prepared. The case was registered and investigated. 3. Ultimately, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented in the Court. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses in all. Thereafter, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 5. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction recorded against the petitioner, Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel has sought extension of the benefits of probation towards the petitioner by taking some lenient view. He also states that the petitioner has already undergone more than 1-1/2 months out of the substantive sentence. 6. Records before me transpire that the occurrence took place as far back as in the year 2002. G.S. Sandhawalia, learned counsel has sought extension of the benefits of probation towards the petitioner by taking some lenient view. He also states that the petitioner has already undergone more than 1-1/2 months out of the substantive sentence. 6. Records before me transpire that the occurrence took place as far back as in the year 2002. The petitioner has already suffered lot of agony of protracted proceedings for the last more than five years, apart from undergoing more than 1-1/2 months of imprisonment. No bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record by the prosecution in order to dub him as habitual offender. Thus, taking a lenient view, the sentence is modified to the extent that the petitioner is extended the benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his executing bound in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for a period of one year within which period he will continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bonds, he will be ready to serve the sentence as and when called for. The modification shall be subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner towards costs of the litigation, in addition to the fine amount. With the above modification in the sentence, the petition is dismissed.