Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) BALKAR Singh, aged 22, and Lakhbir Singh, aged 25, have challenged conviction under section (sic) (1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, when under they were sentenced by the trial court to the bare minimum prescribed (sic) under the law i.e. six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of payment of fine, further rigorous (sic) ment for three months each, and which was maintained on their appeal by the appellate Court.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution as found by the Court below, was that on April 3, 1975 A S I, Malkiat Singh P W, 2 accompanied by other police and excise officials went to the house of the accused, on prior information, that liquor was illicitly being distilled in that house. He joined Iqbal Singh P.W 1 from the circular road of the village Thereafter, raid was conducted and both the accused were found distilling illicit liquor by means of working a still. Balkar Singh was found to be feeding the fire, while Lakhbir Singh was changing water of the cooler. The accused were arrested on the spot. The still was dismantled Excise Inspector Nirmal Singh P.W 3 tested a sample of 80 KGs of lahan, recovered at the spot, and found it to be fit for illic(sic) distillation After due course, the Petitioners were sent up for trial The prosecution Examined P.W 1 Tqbal Singh, who was declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution case. P.W. 2 A S.I. Malkiat Singh and P.W. 3 Excite Inspector Nirmal Singh. The trial Court discarded the statement of P.W. 1 Iqbal Singh, but bared the order of conviction on the evidence of P.W 2 and P.W. 3, who were both officials. As said before, no infirmity could be found in the order of conviction upheld by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the conviction of the Petitioners, suggesting that it would be unsafe to rely upon the statements of the P.Ws., one of whom happened to be a police official and the other an Excise Inspector, uncorroborated by any independent witness. In particular, he pointed out that the only witness of the public, P.W. 1 Iqbal Singh, had not supported the prosecution case, which rendered the case doubtful. It is patent on the record that no animus or enmity has been suggested by the Petitioners against the police and the excise officials. It is difficult to believe that these two witnesses would falsely implicate the accused in derogation of the performance of their official functions. No infirmity can be found out in the order of conviction, which is hereby maintained.
(3.) IT was then contended that the accused were young men in their early twenties at the time of the commission of the offence, and that there was nothing on the record to suggest anything advene as to their antecedents and character. Stressing further, the learned Counsel suggested these two young -men be not sent back to jail to share company with hardened criminals, and the beneficent provision of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure, be employed, to put them on a reformatory path. Undoubtedly, the legislature has put a bare minimum for the offence of working a still for unc(sic) distillation, and the quantity of lahan recovered in the instant case, does suggest that distillation was going on large scale yet keeping in view the concept of punishment, which in recent times, has been undergoing a change it would be in the fitness of things that an opportunity be given to the Petitioners so that they reform themselves. Instead of sentencing them substantively, the Petitioners are directed to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 3,300/ - each, with two sureties of the like amount for a period of two years to be executed on or before December 31, 1979, before the trial Court, and be prepared to receive sentence when called upon to do so and in the mean while, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in the event of failure of the Petitioners to execute the bonds, so required and within the lime allotted, it should be taken that they have opted for going back to jail. In that case, they would suffer the unexpired period of their sentence and would also pay the fine.;