- (1.) The petitioner has been convicted under Section 61(1) (c) of Punjab Excise Act, as he was found to have been distilling illicit liquor. The petitioner was ordered to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days, by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala vide judgment dated 10.06.2009. Even the appeal filed by him before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.7.2011.
(2.) The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgments. On 17.10.2011, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following order: Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will restrict his prayer only for grant of probation, which can be so granted in terms of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 82 PunLR 585. Notice of motion to this limited extent for 16.11.2011. The affidavit on behalf of State has been filed wherein it has been stated that petitioner was convicted in another case and was released on probation. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid reply reads thus: That as per the information derived from all SHOs of Police District Batala a case FIR No.155 dated 19.11.2002 u/s, 61.1.14 Ex. Act. Police Station Civil Lines Batala was registered against the petitioner Amrik Singh and 5250 M.L. illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. The ld court of Sh. Raman Kumar P.C.S.JMIC Batala vide order dated 18.10.2007 had granted the benefit of probation to the accused by furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-with one surety in the like amount with the undertaking not to repeat the offence. The cost of Rs.100/-of the proceeding was also imposed on the accused.
(3.) It is suffice to say that keeping in view the past record of the petitioner and the fact that despite grant of probation in an earlier case, he has indulged again in a similar kind of illegal activity and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of probation as argued. No other point is urged. Dismissed.;