Jora Singh, J.:- Hari Singh through this revision has impugned the judgment dated 29.11.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in case FIR No.634 dated 22.10.1995 under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, registered at Police Station City, Hisar. Vide this judgment, appeal against the judgment/order dated 8.9.1999 and 9.9.1999 rendered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, was dismissed.

2. As per the judgment/order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, the petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.10.1995, a police party headed by ASI Bansi Lal was present near Octroi Post,Barwala Road, Hisar. In the meantime, a car bearing No. HR-20-A-0979, being driven by Hari Singh, was seen while coming from Barwala side, and was signaled to stop. On search of the car, ‘15 boxes, each containing 12 bottles of country made liquor, were recovered. A sample from each of the bottle was taken, and the samples and remainders were sealed by the I.O. with seal bearing seal impression ‘BL’. The case property was taken into possession and a ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, a formal FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

4. The petitioner was charged under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses, namely, Om Parkash (PW1), ASI Bansi Lal (PW2), Jagdish (PW3), Ganga Dutt (PW4) and Om Parkash (PW5).

6. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He alleged false implication and claimed himself to be innocent. However, no evidence in defence was led.

7. Ultimately, after hearing A.P.P. for the State, defence counsel for the accused and going through the evidence present on the file, the accused was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment/order of learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the occurrence was in the month of October, 1995. At that time, the petitioner was 25 years old, and at present, he is about 40 years of age. The petitioner is the first offender and belongs to a poor family. The occurrence took place in the year 1995. Learned counsel requests that at least one chance may be given to the petitioner to improve, otherwise, he is to become hard criminal if sent to jail to undergo imprisonment, as ordered by the trial Court.

10. Learned State counsel argued that keeping in view the recovery, he has no objection if a lenient view is taken provided the petitioner is directed to pay costs of the litigation.

11. On 22.10.1995, a police party headed by ASI Bansi Lal was present near Octroi Post, Barwala Road, Hisar. In the meantime, the petitioner was spotted while coming in a car from Barwala side, and was signalled to stop. On search of the car, ‘15 boxes, each containing 12 bottles of country made liquor, were recovered. The I.O. and the recovery witnesses have categorically stated that 15 boxes, each containing 12 bottles of country made liquor were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. There are minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses, but the discrepancies are not material one, same being occurred with the passage of time. Link evidence is also complete. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly opined that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner is the first offender and was 25 years old when recovery was effected. The petitioner is to become hard criminal if sent