Passey, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Barnala recommending that the sentence of Kapur Singh respondent be enhanced.
(2.) ON a police raid Kapur Singh was found working a still. A fairy large quantity of Lahan. four bottles of distilled liquor, the necessary implement and utensils of distilling were also found in his possession. The trial Magistrate before whom he confessed his guilt convicted him under S. 61. Punjab Excise Act and punished him with Rs. 50/ - fine. The State filed a revision against the inadequacy of the penitence and the same has been submitted to this Court for acceptance. The trial Magistrate purporting to act under S. 69 (A) of the said Act had also bound down the convict to be of good behaviour for an year. Section 69 (A) was inserted in the Punjab Excise Act after 1925 as. an amendment but that amendment was not enforcer in Patiala or Pepsu. The order of the Trial Magistrate binding down Kapur Singh to be of good behaviour for an year was. therefore, besides being outside the purview of S. 69 (A) without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The main question on which arguments have been advanced by the counsel of the parties is that of the quantum of sentence. Two reasons prevailed with the trial Magistrate in imposing the paltry fine of Rs. 50/ -: firstly that the accused was a refugee and secondly that he had made a confessional statement. It would obviously be a misplaced indulgence to punish offences of this type so leniently where they are committed by displaced persons for it would be an encouraging incentive to the commission by them of offences under the Excise law. Again the fact that the accused, finding that there was no escape from conviction, as the charge against him had been established by incontrovertible evidence confessed his guilt, is by itself not a circumstance that reduces his liability for the crime to that extent. It is true that what should be an adequate punishment within the maximum provided for an offence, is primarily for the convicting Court to decide, but that discretion should exhibit that a reasonable proportion has been maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment imposed. While Courts should not pass a sentence disproportionately severe as compared with the nature of the offence committed they should also be careful not to award a sentence that on account of its manifest inadequacy would fail to produce a deterring effect on the offender and serve as an eye opener to the rest. Although no hard and fast rule can be laid down for measuring what in a particular case would be a proper sentence; yet Courts are expected to observe a desirable proportion between the gravity of the offence and the punishment for It.
(3.) IN the present case the trial Magistrate was carried by the offender being a 'refugee' & by his confession. He failed to take into account that he had not only been found in possession of four bottles of freshly distilled illicit liquor and a large quantity of Lahan but that he was actually working a still with the obvious object of making illicit gain. In the case under examination as was indicated by the presence of the large quantity of Lahan, if the offender had not been interrupted by the raid, he would have manufactured quite.a large quantity of alcohol. Illicit distillation demoralise people and affects the State revenue for which a deterrent sentence is very necessary.;