The court confirms conviction while granting probation, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment for first-time offenders.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 14.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 12/16.05.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo have been upheld, in case stemming from FIR No.110 dated 23.08.2000 registered under Sections 61 (i)(c) of Punjab Excise Act at Police Station Raman.

2. The petitioner was sentenced as under:

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2000, when a police party headed by ASI Darshan Singh was present at bus stop Seikhu in connection with excise raid, HC Babu Singh received a secret information that Jeet Singh s/o Bhura Singh resident of Seikhu was involved in distilling illicit liquor and in case, a raid is conducted at his residence, he could be caught red handed. Thereafter, a raid was conducted, and the accused was found present in the kitchen of his house while operating working still. Components of the working still were taken into possessions vide separate recovery memo along with plastic can containing 50 liters of lahan. Case property was sealed with the seal bearing impression G.S.S. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused under Section 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act .

4. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 12/16.05.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2006.

5.. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises. It is contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has family responsibilities. Further, the petitioner has been facing trial for the last more than 24 years, and as such, the learned Courts below should have considered releasing him on probation under Section 3 61 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 .

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he does not challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.05.2006 on merits but restricts his prayer to modification of the order on the quantum of sentence and seeks the petitioner's release on probation in view of his age and good conduct.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Court based on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. However, learned State counsel does not object to the restricted prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for releasing the petitioner on probation.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, the Court notes that Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, empower the Courts to release the offenders/convicts on probation of good conduct if deemed appropriate in view of circumstances of the case. Similarly, 60 and 361 of the Cr.P.C, also empower the Courts to release the offenders on probation for good conduct in the cases and circumstances mentioned the