IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :17.02.2026 Yadwinder Singh @ Pappu ......Petitioner Versus State ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 61-1-14 of Punjab Excise Act, the FIR No.7 dated 12.01.2002 was lodged in police Station Tapa. With regard to above mentioned FIR the petitioner was sent to face trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’. After trial the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty for the commission of above mentioned offence, by virtue of judgment of conviction dated 08.03.2007, and on the same day, by virtue of order on quantum of sentence awarded following sentence to the petitioner:-

2. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, hereinafter being referred as ‘Appellate Court’. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly accepted by maintaining the conviction but the quantum of sentence was reduced for a period of 6 months vide judgment dated 10.01.2009.

3. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.03.2007, passed by the learned trial Court, and the judgment dated 10.01.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Rajinder Singh’, who had reported that when he along with his companions was present on the drain bridge on the road leading from Tapa to village Daraj in discharge of patrolling duty, at about 6.40 P.M. he spotted a rickshaw puller coming from village Daraj side. According to above named police officer when signaled the accused stopped the rickshaw and on checking it was found that in the rickshaw he was carrying 6 cartons of country made liquor, i.e. Patiala Santra (total 12 bottles each). As per prosecution on interrogation the petitioner disclosed his name as ‘Yadvinder Singh’. It is the case of the prosecution that since the petitioner could not produce any permit or licence for being in possession of above mentioned liquor, the above mentioned liquor was seized, the FIR was lodged, and the investigation taken up.

5. The learned State Counsel has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve to be set aside being an outcome of non-application of judicial mind. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court, vis-à-vis the learned Appellate Court, have failed to appreciate the fact that necessary ingredients meant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61-1-14 were not established by the prosecution as per the standard required under the law.

8. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises as well as assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty, and that despite numerous deficiencies in prosecution case, which were duly pointed out, the learned Appellate Court, has not set aside the judgment of conviction and accepted the appeal partly, only qua the quantum of conviction.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that in the instant revision petition, the petitioner is not inclined to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically contended that at this sta