Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. ***** DEEPAK MANCHANDA , J. (Oral)

#1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran and judgment dated 12.12.2008 vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran dismissed the appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2008, whereby the petitioner was convicted for having committed offence punishable under Sections 61(1)(a) and 61(1)(b) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months apart from fine of Rs.2,000/-.

#2. The facts, in brief, are that on 03.01.2002, Head Constable Sarabjit Singh, along with LC Joginder Singh, LC Avtar Singh, Constable Gurvail Singh, under the supervision of Excise Inspector Hardeep Singh Sekhon, was present at Bohri Chowk, Tarn Taran so as to conduct excise checking. A secret CRR-2781-2008 (O&M) ( 2 ) information was received that the accused Jarnail Singh was engaged in the distillation and sale of illicit liquor at his residence. Upon receiving the said information, a ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which the present case was registered. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at the house of the accused situated in Mohalla Nanaksar, Tarn Taran, where he was allegedly apprehended while stirring a drum containing 150 kilograms of lahan. A plastic can containing illicit liquor was also recovered from the spot. A sample of 180 mls. was separated from the recovered liquor, while the remaining quantity was found equivalent to 19 bottles of 750 mls. each and one bottle of 570 mls. The lahan was tested by the Excise Inspector, who prepared the test report. The sample, illicit liquor, and lahan were sealed with the respective seals of the police official and the Excise Inspector, and the case property was taken into possession through a recovery memo. A rough site plan was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the trial Court against the accused.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 6 months as imposed by learned Trial Court, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 month and 05 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order dated

12.01.2009 passed by this Court suspending his sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice. CRR-2781-2008 (O&M) ( 3 )

#4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 19.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

#6. A bare perusal of the material available on record reveals that FIR No.9, dated 03.01.2002 under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was registered at Police Station City, Tarn Taran. The petitioner at the time of conviction was 40 years of age and as of now he would be aged about 58 years and has already faced a protracted criminal proceedings of about 23 years.

#7. Pursuant to the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses, whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was thereafter recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence.

#8. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Moreover, the offence is not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated 19.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 01 month and 05 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of six months rigorous CRR-2781-2008 (O&M) ( 4 ) imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

#9. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced the sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.”

#10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said CRR-2781-2008 (O&M) ( 5 ) experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

#11. Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by the Courts below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

#12. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged.

#13. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

#14. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.

20.07.2026 Pankaj ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA ) JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No