IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

CRR No.2671 of 2025

Reserved on: 12.11.2025

Pronounced on:01.01.2026

Date of uploading the full

judgment:01.01.2026

Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Argued By:-Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG, Punjab.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. This revision pe(cid:14)(cid:14)on is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Court of learned Addi(cid:14)onal Sessions Judge, Pa(cid:14)ala in CRA/21/2019 (cid:10)tled M/s Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, vide which appeal filed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura has been dismissed vide which he was held guilty and convicted under Sec(cid:14)on 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of ₹1 lakh with default sentence of 03 months rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine in case arising out of FIR No.97 dated 13.05.2014 registered under Sec(cid:14)on 61/1/14

of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Sta(cid:14)on City Rajpura.

2. Brief facts of the prosecu(cid:14)on case are that on 13.05.2014, HC Harjinder Singh along with other police officials was present at Sirhind Bye Pass, G.T. Road, Rajpura, in connec(cid:14)on with patrolling duty when a secret informa(cid:14)on was received that

accused Rakesh Kumar son of late Som Nath, resident of Guru Nanak Nagar, Nalas Road, Rajpura keeps liquor in his house and sells the same without any permit or licence. On the basis of said informa(cid:14)on, ruqa was sent and raid was conducted at the house of accused. On checking, 15 boxes of liquor make First Choice were found lying in the store of said house. The liquor of above said bo>les was transferred into four plas(cid:14)c cans and four sample nips were drawn. The sample nips, four canny plas(cid:14)cs and 180 empty bo>les were sealed by IO. Sample seal was prepared separately. The case property i.e. sample nips, four canny plas(cid:14)cs and 180 empty bo>les were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on return to the police sta(cid:14)on, case property was deposited with MHC concerned. Accused was arrested and a@er comple(cid:14)on of inves(cid:14)ga(cid:14)on, final report was presented in the Court for trial.

3. Today learned counsel for the pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner stated at the outset that pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner does not press the revision on merits against the judgment of convic(cid:14)on and that pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner confines his prayer only against order of sentence. It is submi>ed that appellant would be sa(cid:14)sfied, in case his sentence is reduced or benefit of proba(cid:14)on is extended in his favour. Learned counsel points out that offence pertains to the year 2014. Pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner has already undergone more than two months of sentence out of sentence of three years awarded to him a@er dismissal of the appeal. He is not involved in any other case and his sentence may be reduced by taking a lenient view.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the aforesaid prayer and has argued that pe(cid:14)(cid:14)oner does not deserve any leniency in view of gravity of the offence.

5. I have gone through the trial Court judgment as well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. In order to prove its case, the prosecu(cid:14)on has examined HC Harjinder Singh as PW1, who was heading the raiding party which had apprehended the accused from his house and recovered the liquor bo>les for which accused could not produce any permit or license for possessing the same and he has stated the material facts of the prosecu(cid:14)on case on oath as well regarding recovery of t