S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were found distilling illicit liquor by working a still. They were found guilty under Section 61 (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act and convicted accordingly by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib, on April 17, 1980. They were sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 5000/ - each. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, not only upheld their conviction but also confirmed the sentence. Feeling aggrieved, they have now come up by way of revision.
(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 14th August, 1979, Excise inspector Harbhajan Singh alongwith Head Constable Didar Singh and some police official was proceedings to village Bains, when they received a secret information that the petitioners were, distilling illicit liquor. On receipt of this information Head Constable Didar Singh sent ruqa, Ex. PC, to the Police Station, on the basis of which this case was registered. Bachan Singh Sarpanch and Hari Ram were co -opted as witnesses with the raiding party. When the raiding party reached near the house of the petitioners, have found both the petitioners distilling illicit liquor at the working still. On seeing the police party, both the petitioners managed to escape. The working still was cooled down and the components including the utensils containing lahan were taken into possession. A sample was taken out of the distilled liquor and the remaining illicit liquor was transferred into 6 -1/2 bottles. The sample sent to the. Chemical Examiner was found to be illicit liquor. The prosecution examined Excise Inspector Harbhajan Singh, Bachan Singh and Head Constable Didar Singh in support of its case. The petitioners denied the prosecution allegation and pleaded false complicity in the case.
(3.) MR . M. P. Maleri, learned counsel for the petitioners, has been unable to seriously dislodge the considered findings of the courts below. It was sought to be contended that the identity of the petitioners was not established beyond doubt from the evidence on record. This contention as already noticed by both the Courts below is hardly tenable. The Investigating Officer and the other witnesses have consistently stated that they had identified the petitioners. The conviction of the petitioners has been rested primarily on the evidence of the aforesaid two officials witnesses supported by Bachan Singh, who was quite an independent and dis -interested or animus against the petitioners to falsely implicate them on a serious charge. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioners was for affording the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or for a reduction in the sentence of the petitioners. I see no merit in the same either. A heavy quantity of fully fermented lahan which was fit for distillation of illicit liquor, was recovered from the possession of the petitioners, besides 61/4 bottles of distilled illicit liquor, and it was obviously for purposes of commercial gain. The statute has provided the minimum sentence of punishment for this offence and it is only in exceptional cases that resort is to be made to the Probation of Offenders Act to over -ride that provision. I am unable to find any adequate reasons, in the present case, for deviating from the mandate of the Legislature. The sentenced imposed on the petitioners is therefore, maintained. The revision petition is hence dismissed both on the point of conviction and sentence. Petition dismissed.;