Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Chand vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040208
2024:PHHC:040208
250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-1237-2023 (O & M)
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
PREM CHAND
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
18.04.203 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which,
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 03.12.2022
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur in FIR No.352 dated
02.11.2017 filed under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act registered at
Police Station City Sangrur, has been upheld. The petitioner was sentenced as
under:
Offence Sentence
Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise To undergo RI for 02 years
Act alongwith fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in
default of which, to undergo RI for
01 month.
2. In brief, the facts of the present case are that on 02.11.2017, HC
Ranjit Singh alongwith HC Surjit Singh, HC Pawan Kumar and PHG Baljinder
Singh in connection with patrolling and checking of suspected persons was
present near Sabzi Mandi, Sunami Gate, Sangrur. There HC Ranjit Singh
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040208
CRR-1237-2023 (O & M) 2 2024:PHHC:040208
received a secret information that petitioner-Prem Chand son of Dogar Dass
resident near Ram Mandir Patiala Gate, Sangrur, now residing in the house of
Ishwar Chander son of Bodha Ram resident of House no.26 near Jawahar
Sweet Police Station City, Sangrur, is habitual of selling the country made
liquor by bringing it from Haryana. On that day also, he had kept the huge
quantity of the bottles of country made liquor in the adjoining house of his
rented accommodation and he can be caught red handed. The information
being reliable, HC Ranjit Singh sent ruqa through PHG Baljinder Singh for
registration of FLR, on the basis of which, F.L.R was registered against the
petitioner. Thereafter, HC Ranjit Singh alongwith police party raided the
disclosed place by secret informer. The petitioner was found sitting on the floor
who was found counting the bottles of country made liquor. Petitioner was
apprehended by HC Ranjit Singh with the help of police party. On
interrogation, he disclosed his name Prem Chand son of Dogar Dass, resident
near Ram Mandir Patiala Gate, Sangrur now residing in the house of Ishwar
Chand son of Bodha Ram, resident of House No.261, near Jawahar Sweet,
Sangrur. On checking of the plastic bag recovered in possession of the
petitioner, 108 bottles of country made liquor Make Malta Haryana. HC Ranjit
Singh arranged one tub and poured all the bottles in the tub and drew the
sample of 180 ml. HC Ranjit Singh also arranged two plastic cans of 50 litres
each. He poured 54 bottles of country made liquor in one plastic can and
further poured quarter to 54 bottles in the other plastic can. Both the cans were
marked as serial no.1 and 2 respectively. The empty 108 bottles were put in the
plastic bag and converted into the parcel. Thereafter, HC Ranjit Singh sealed
both the plastic cans, sample and parcel containing 108 empty bottles with his
seal bearing impression 'RS'. Sample seal was prepared separately and handed
over to HC Surjit Singh. Then entire case property including sample seal was
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040208
CRR-1237-2023 (O & M) 3 2024:PHHC:040208
taken into police possession by HC Ranjit Singh. Site plan of the place of
recovery was prepared. Petitioner was arrested. Statements of the witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. On receipt of report of Chemical
Examiner and completion of investigation, challan against the accused was
presented in the Court.
3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 03.12.2022 by
the learned trial Court which has also been upheld by lower Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 18.04.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2022on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a
period of 10 months and 07 days.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record which has also been
upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, he does not deserve
any leniency.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a
Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of
sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and
maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of
sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each
case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the
offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040208
CRR-1237-2023 (O & M) 4 2024:PHHC:040208
determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used
arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence
should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure
the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala
v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of
sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the
accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society
at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation
must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all
attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the
manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to
strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of
the accused.
8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct
appreciation of evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted
his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 02.11.2017 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for more than 06
years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen
and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he has
undergone actual sentence of 09 months and 17 days out of total sentence of 02
years in the instant case.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040208
CRR-1237-2023 (O & M) 5 2024:PHHC:040208
period already undergone by him.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
03.12.2022 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 02 years along with default mechanism awarded
to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed
upon the petitioner by the trial Court shall remain intact. The
petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine in the trial
Court within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, the
appellant/petitioner shall be liable to be taken into custody and
made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 20, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
