SURINDER SINGH, J. - (1.) KARNAIL Singh and Buta Singh petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the concurrent verdict of the two Courts below as per which they stand convicted under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, for which offence each of the petitioners was ordered to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each.
(2.) IN substance, the prosecution allegation is that on October 30, 1980, A.S.I. Amarjit Singh (P.W.2) along with Excise Inspector Avtar Singh (P.W.1) and some other officials including one Amar Singh, a non-official witness were present at Thikriwala road Barnala where they received secret information that the petitioners were indulging in the sale of illicit liquor. The party reached the bridge of the canal minor in the area of village Sanghera. Soon thereafter a Car came from the side of village Raikot which was intercepted on suspicion. The Car was driven by Karnail Singh petitioner. Buta Singh petitioner was sitting on the back seat. The search of the Car revealed the presence of illicit liquor contained in a small drum. The liquor on being measured was found to be 260 bottles. It is further alleged that Karnail Singh petitioner, in consequence of his interrogation and disclosure statement, got recovered some other articles from his residential house, which are not very material for the purpose of the present case. The sample of the recovered article was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab, according to whose report, Ex. PJ, the same on analysis was found to be illicit liquor. The petitioners were, therefore, prosecuted with the above stated result. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the evidence on the record and has mainly reiterated the submissions which have already been noticed by the Courts below. It is emphasised that Avtar Singh P.W.1, during the course of his testimony had referred to the recovered article as spirit and not as illicit liquor and hence the petitioners should get the benefit of this discrepancy. The argument is not tenable. The report of the Chemical Examiner leaves no room for doubt that the recovered article was nothing but illicit liquor. If the same is described as spirit, in the general sense, it would not detract from the culpability of the petitioners. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the only non-official witness of the recovery, that is, Amar Singh had not been produced as he was given up by the prosecution. The circumstance is of no benefit to the petitioner. On the other hand, it goes to establish that the official witness had associated with them a non-official person for the picket. If that non-official witness is won over, it would not mean that the testimony of the two official witnesses should also be ruled out of consideration specially when the same is free from any taint or discrepancies or contradictions. The conviction of the petitioners for the offence under section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act is therefore, well based and is affirmed.
(3.) ON the question of sentence, the learned counsel has emphasised that the two petitioners are of young age and are first offenders. The incident in question is of October 30, 1980, and since then they have been facing the agony of a protracted trial and appeal. The submission is that if they are now sent back to jail, it would not be conducive to their moral health to be in the company of hardened criminals. The two petitioners have already undergone some confinement during their prosecution and also before they were released on bail by this Court. I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners is reduced to the period of confinement already undergone by them. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- and 3 months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment thereof, is however, maintained. If the petitioners have paid fine, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. If not, they are allowed three weeks time to deposit the fine, failing which necessary consequences shall ensue. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.;