Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral) - The present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment, dated 07.08.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-Nachhattar Singh son of Mithu Singh, resident of village Surewala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, impugning his conviction and sentence, dated 16.12.2011, recorded by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib, was dismissed.

2. When the case came up for preliminary hearing on 09.10.2014, at that time the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner since both the Courts below had gone against the petitioner. However, on the strength of judgments rendered in the matters of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 585 (Full Bench); Kuldip Chand v. State of Punjab, CRR-1770-2005 decided on 10.09.2012); and Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab, (CRR-2102-2012 decided on 20.09.2012) he submitted that in spite of the fact that minimum sentence was prescribed, the petitioner could be released on probation and, as such, notice of motion was issued with regard to quantum of sentence only.

3. Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Joginder Singh (supra) and the judgments rendered in the matters of Kuldip Chand and Nishan Singh (supra), it was held that a person convicted under Section 61(1) (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for brevity, `the Excise Act') can be released on probation. However, he submits that the petitioner was found operating a working still and 30 kgs of Lahan and six bottles of illicit liquor each containing 750 ml were recovered from the petitioner, therefore, the sentence passed by the Courts below should not be disturbed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner but to satisfy the conscience of this Court, the material available on record has been thoroughly perused.

6. As per the version to be verified by the prosecution, on 05.06.2009, HC Baldev Singh along with other police officials was going from village Harike Kalan to village Surewala in connection with patrolling and in the meantime received a secret information that the petitioner, who was in the habit of distilling and selling the illicit liquor, could be apprehended red handed if the raid was conducted at his house. Believing the information to be correct, memo was prepared and sent to the Police Station, Bariwala, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Kaur Singh, the Chowkidar of village Surewala was joined in the police party and thereafter a raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner. As soon as the police party reached there, the petitioner after hearing the voice, ran away from the spot. The police party found that the petitioner was operating a still, which was cooled down and dismantled. The material available on record was taken into police possession. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Sample of Lahan from the spot was got tested from the Excise Inspector. The petitioner was arrested on 30.12.2009 and after receiving the report from the Chemical Examiner, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented for prosecution of the petitioner. After completing the formalities of supplying the copies of the charge-sheet etc. to the petitioner, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 61(1) (c) of the Excise Act was framed, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In support of its allegations, the prosecution examined PW1 HC Bashir Singh; PW2 HC Baldev Singh, Investigating Officer; PW3 HC Harvinder Singh; PW4 EI Madan Lal Manchanda; PW5 HC Dalbir Singh and thereafter le