VIRENDER SINGH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Sham Lal was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide impugned judgment dated 2.3.2004, under Section 61(1) of the Punjab Excise Act for being found in his possession 487 bags (bottles) of country made liquor without any permit or licence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal. Vide impugned judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 28.11.2005, the appeal filed by the petitioner also stands dismissed on all the count. Hence, this revision.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner does not join issue of the merits of the case and instead has prayed for showing a lenient tilt towards quantum of sentence stating that the petitioner is not a previous convict. He is of age of 41 years having minor children. He then submits that he is the only bread winner of the family. In support of his aforesaid arguments on the point of reduction in the quantum of sentence, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Chief rendered in Criminal Revision No. 1706 of 2004, Rajbir v. State of Haryana, decided on Aug. 27, 2004 in which this Court while deciding the aforesaid revision petition had released the petitioner (accused) on his furnishing probation bond. However, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- and subsequently, converted into cost of the proceedings under Section 5(1)(b) of Probation of Offenders Act.
(3.) THE prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by the learned State Counsel, who submits that the recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner is heavy and as such, he does not deserve the aforesaid relief.;