Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 October, 2021
CRR-1142 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109 CRR-1142 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.10.2021
Pargat Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(Through Video Conferenceing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
The present criminal revision petition has been filed against the
order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Malerkotla, by which, the petitioner was convicted for six months in FIR
No.40 dated 14.04.2017 registered under Sections 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise
Act at Police Station City Amargarh as well as order dated 16.09.2021
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of conviction, has been
rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that while taking the
sample and getting it examined, the due process required under the law was
not followed as the examination of the sample was delayed without any
justification and the said act has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further argues that the number of the vehicle, from
1 of 3
CRR-1142 of 2021 (O&M) -2-
which the recovery was made, was also not correctly described and,
therefore the order passed by the trial Court convicting the petitioner as well
as the order passed by the lower Appellate Court affirming the same, are
liable to the set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The plea of the petitioner with regard to non-following of due
process while getting the sample examined, has already been considered by
the Courts below, wherein, a finding has been recorded that the sample so
taken was never tampered with in any manner so as to cause prejudice to the
petitioner and the delay in sending the sample for examination itself is no
ground to discard the report. Even during the arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioner has conceded that sample was not tampered with but, raised
the argument that the sample was required to be sent for examination
immediately. The prejudice caused to the petitioner, if any on the said
account has not been brought to the notice of this Court hence, in the
absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of sample not
being sent for examination immediately, no ground for interference by this
Court is made out on the said argument.
Second argument which is being raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the vehicle number which was PB-23-V-5500 was
mentioned as PB-23-B-5500. The said argument has already been noticed
by both the Courts below and the finding has been recorded that the same
was a typographical mistake, which will not affect the act committed by the
petitioner in any manner, so as to give him the benefit of the said
typographical error. Nothing has been pointed out to this Court that vehicle
in question was not involved in the incident or the same was not the clerical
2 of 3
CRR-1142 of 2021 (O&M) -3-
mistake.
The last argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner being a first offender be granted the benefit
of probation.
Once, the recovery which has been done from the petitioner is
on the heavy side, no ground is made out to grant the said prayer of the
petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence is
proportionate and need no interference by this Court in this revision
petition.
Keeping in view the above, no ground for interference in the
impugned orders by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
CRMs-33201, 33202 & 33203-2021
Keeping in view the order passed in the main criminal revision
petition, the present applications stand dismissed.
October 6, 2021 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
