Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Bikkar Singh and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRR-2195-2007
Decided On : 07-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Pooja Jain, Advocate (Amicus Curiae for the petitioners.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
The court upheld the conviction while reducing the sentence to time served, emphasizing judicial discretion and proportionality in sentencing, especially where no minimum punishment is prescribed.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Excise Act, 1914 - Section 61(1)(a) - Conviction for unlawful possession - Petitioners convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 - Appeal against conviction dismissed - Evidence and ownership discrepancies in prosecution not addressed - Sentence reduced to time already served due to no minimum punishment specified and justifiable circumstances (Paras 1, 6, 10).
(B) Sentencing - Discretion in determining sentence regarding multiple offenses and mitigating circumstances - Proportionality in sentencing emphasized by precedent and Supreme Court rulings (Paras 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners convicted under Section 61(1)(a) for possessing illicit liquor, appealing dismissal of conviction. They served 2 months in custody while contending evidence weaknesses.
Findings of Court:
The sentence was reduced to time already served as a matter of justice.
Issues: Conviction basis, sentencing discretion, and consideration of prior custody served.
Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasizes the importance of judicial discretion, proportionality, and the petitioners' changed circumstances over years, reaffirming sentencing serves rehabilitative purpose (Paras 8, 11).
Result: Petition granted, conviction upheld, sentence modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petition and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on sentencing considerations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. decision on reducing sentence based on duration served. (Para 11) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of application. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 01.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, in FIR No.143 dated 04.09.2004 registered under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 registered at Police Station Tapa, has been dismissed.
2. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:
Offence | Sentence |
Section 61(1)(a) of | Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for two months each. |
3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioners vide judgment dated 10.07.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 01.11.2007.
4. Learned amicus curiae for the petitioner inter alia contends that the prosecution has not verified about the ownership of the Car that has said to be involved in the case in hand. One independent witness was joined in the investigation but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Lastly, she submits that petitioner No.1 has already undergone a total period of 02 months and 28 days in custody and petitioner No.2 has already undergone a total period of 02 months and 25 days in custody. He further submits that petitioner No.1 is involved in two more cases, out of which, he is on bail in one case and undergone sentence in another case, whereas, petitioner No.2 is not involved in any other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. He further submits that petitioner No.1 is involved in two more cases and both the petitioners involved in a heinous crime, as such, they do not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner No.1 is on bail in one case and undergone sentence in another case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioners were convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per their custody certificate, petitioner No.1 has already undergone a total period of 02 months and 28 days in custody and petitioner No.2 has already undergone a total period of 02 months and 25 days in custody out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
7. Further, the primary consideration in matters where the petitioner/appellant is involved in other NDPS cases ought to be the severity of the offence. Moreover, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have deemed it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon the accused to be the custody already undergone by them, in spite of their involvement in other cases pertaining to the NDPS Act in Pritam Singh @ Preeti vs. State of Punjab in CRA-S-1769-SB-2010 decided on 03.04.2025, Ram Lal vs. State of Haryana in CRA-S-986-SB-2005 dec
