KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by Gurdeep Singh son of Puran Singh. He was named as accused in case FIR No.27 dated 30.01.1996 registered at Police Station Sadar Jallalabad under Sec.61 (1) of the Punjab Excise Act.

2. The trial Court found him guilty of the offence under Section 61 (1) of the Punjab Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Court of additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

3. Case of the prosecution is that ASI Gurbhej Singh along with his companion officials was on a patrol duty in a private jeep from village pali Wala to village Chak Pali Wala. A secret information was received that the petitioner is distilling illicit liquor from a working still on Sem Drain at a distance of 1 km. The police party conducted the raid and petitioner was found operating working still.80 kg of Lahan and articles of working still were taken into possession and a recovery memo to this effect was drawn.

4. Prosecution examined Gurjit Singh, Excise Inspector as pw-1, Constable Ranjit Singh as PW-2, ASI Gurbhej Singh as PW-3, HC hari Chand as PW-4 and HC Nachhatar Singh as PW-5. Report of the chemical Examiner Ex. P8 was tendered in evidence. ASI Gurbhej Singh pw-3 testified regarding the recovery effected from the spot and apprehension of the petitioner. His testimony was duly corroborated by HC hari Chand PW-4. The findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the appellate Court, who also held that deposition of PW-3 ASI Gurbhej singh and HC Hari Chand PW-4 aspires confidence. They were held to be trustworthy witnesses.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he will not be able to assail conviction of the petitioner, as except pointing out contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, he has nothing in his arsenal. Counsel has further submitted that argument that independent witness was not examined, was rejected by two courts below, as defence failed to prove any animus on the part of official witnesses. However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petitioner has suffered mental agony and pain of protracted trial for about 14 years and when he was convicted he was aged 22-23 years. It is submitted that petitioner has committed no other offence prior to or after the present occurrence. The petitioner is leading life of peaceful, honest and law abiding citizen. Learned counsel has submitted that petitioner be granted an opportunity to reform himself and rehabilitate in the society. In case he is sent behind the bars, the consequences will harm the interests of the family, as the petitioner is the only bread earner. Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in pakhar Singh V/s. State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 396, in which it was held as under:

"6. In Isher Dass V/s. state of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC 1295, Honble supreme Court held that subsection (1) of Sec.4 of the Probation of offenders Act containing the non-obstante clause, would have over-riding effect and shall prevail if the other conditions prescribed were fulfilled. It was held as follows:-

"The question which arises for determination is whether despite the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment for a term of six months and a fine of rupees one thousand has been prescribed by the legislature for a person found guilty of the offence under the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, the Court can resort to the provision of the Probation of offenders Act. In this respect we find that sub-section (1) of Sec.4 of the probation of Offenders Act contains the words "notwithstanding anything contained in law for the time being in force." The above non obstante clause points to the conclusions that the provisions of Sec.4 of the Probation of of