Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parties Name vs The State Of Punjab on 10 February, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 105 OF 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 10, 2009.
Parties Name
Babu Ram
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Punjab
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Manjari Nehru, D.A.G., Punjab;
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT:
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated November 10, 2001, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, affirming the judgment dated February 18, 2000, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, vide which petitioner was found guilty for commission of an offence under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause. He went in appeal, which was dismissed on November 10, 2001. Hence this revision petition.
It was allegation against the petitioner that on July 26, 1997, he was found in possession of 12 bottles of illicit liquor without any licence. After hearing the State counsel and going through the contents of the paper book, it is not possible for this Court to interfere on merits. The State counsel has failed to show that the petitioner is a habitual offender. There is CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 105 OF 2002 -2- nothing on record to show that the petitioner would indulge in such like offences again, if release on probation. His prayer to release on probation was declined by the trial Court and first appellate Court without assigning any sufficient reason. Offence committed by him does not seem to be very serious. It is a case wherein petitioner be given an opportunity to reform himself.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) , 2001(9) Supreme Court 161, in paragraph No. 7, observed as under:-
"Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repeat for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weight the degree of culpability of the accused. Its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society: weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law, an CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 105 OF 2002 -3- attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law."
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 CAR 280 (SC) and Aitha Chander Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 C.A.R. 5 (SC), to contend that petitioner be released on probation.
Keeping in view facts and circumstances of this case and ratio of the aforesaid judgment, conviction is upheld. However, sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is set aside and he is ordered to be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for a period of six months. The petitioner shall execute bail bond and undertaking before the trial Court that he would act like a disciplined citizen and will not indulge in any crime of the like nature during the period of six months. Requisite bail bonds and undertaking be furnished within three months. With above said modification, this revision petition stands disposed of.
February 10, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge