High Court · 2026

the trial Court held that a (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:13) case under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act was made out against the petitioner and he was ordered to be charge’sheeted accordingly. However, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, Sukhmander Singh PW’1, EI Ram Kumar Bansal PW’2, HC Harnek Singh PW’3 and HC Gurwinder Singh PW’4 and, thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

5. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the petitioner in the shape of his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he termed the prosecution evidence as false and incriminating and submitted that he had been falsely involved in the present case. In defence, the petitioner did not lead any evidence.

6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgement of conviction, however, some leniency may be shown while awarding the sentence to the petitioner.

7. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to challenge the conviction, however, this Court has considered the case on merits.

8. In the present case, the prosecution had examined PW2 Ram Kumar Bansal, Excise Inspector, and PW3 HC Harnek Singh, who categorically stated that the petitioner was caught red’handed by them and after dismantling the working still, the components of working still, AMIT RANA 2026.03.19 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order CCCCRRRRRRRR 888811116666 ooooffff 2222000011110000 4 (cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4) and distilled liquor were recovered from the present petitioner. Even, PW3 HC Harnek Singh had duly identified the case property in the Court and had deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. Apart from that, PW2 Ram Kumar Bansal, Excise Inspector, also exhibited its report, Exhibit PW2/B of the contents of the drum and as per the said report, the drum contained (cid:5)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4) fit for distilling. PW4 MHC Gurwinder Singh submitted that the case property was prepared by the prosecution and the sample was sealed properly. Even the statement of PW4 HC Gurwinder Singh was further corroborated by PW1 Constable Sukhmander Singh. Apart from that, the prosecution placed on records the report of the chemical examiner, Exhibit PW3/B, which proved that the sample contained illicit liquor. The prosecution witnesses were examined at length, however, their testimonies could not be shattered in any manner. Even otherwise, I have carefully perused the findings recorded by both the Courts and find no reasons to deviate from the same. Even, the learned counsel could not point out any infirmity in the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts and the petitioner has been rightly convicted for commission of the offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act.

9. Now, adverting to the order of sentence, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is facing the ordeal of investigation and appeal since 05.11.2005, i.e., for the last more than 20 years. Even, he was the first offender and even after the suspension of sentence by this Court on 10.05.2010, he maintained good conduct and did not get involved in any other crime. Apart from that, the appellant AMIT RANA 2026.03.19 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order CCCCRRRRRRRR 888811116666 ooooffff 2222000011110000 5 has undergone more than one month of actual sentence. Consequently, keeping in view the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

10. With the above modifications, the revision is partly allowed and the impugned judgement dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda and the impugned judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, are upheld whereas the order of sentence is modified to the extent that the sentence imposed on the present petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine will remain the same.

11. All pending applications, if any, are disposed off, accordingly.

12. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per the rules after expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal.

16.03.2026 amit rana Whether reasoned/speaking Whether reportable ((((NNNN....SSSS....SSSSHHHHEEEEKKKKHHHHAAAAWWWWAAAATTTT)))) JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE Yes/No : Yes/No : AMIT RANA 2026.03.19 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order