IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :11.11.2025 Ashok Kumar Shoki ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Esh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

For the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act, the FIR No.196 dated 18.08.2004 was lodged in police Station City Hoshiarpur, with regard to above mentioned FIR the petitioner was sent to face trial before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, hereinafter being referred to as ‘learned trial Court’ only. After trial the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty for the commission of above mentioned offence by, virtue of judgment of conviction dated 15.01.2009, 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 Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, hereinafter being referred to as ‘learned Appellate Court’. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not find favour in the appellate Court and by virtue of judgment dated 13.05.2011 the same has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being when a canter bearing registration No.HR-38B-9324 was intercepted by a police party headed by ASI Bhupinder Singh on

18.08.2024 near Dhobi Ghat, Hoshiarpur.

4. As per prosecution when the driver of the canter fled from the spot and when the search of above mentioned vehicle was conducted 5 boxes of factory made liquor i.e. 3 boxes of brand Officers Choice and 2 boxes of brand ‘Old Fox Matured XXX Rum’ were recovered. It is the case of the prosecution that as the driver of the abovesaid vehicle fled from the spot the above mentioned liquor was seized the FIR was lodged, and the investigation was taken up. As per prosecution during the course of investigation the whereabouts of driver of canter were tracked, and thus, the petitioner was prosecuted.

5. Heard.

6. At the threshold itself, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has instructions not to press the appeal with regard to judgment of conviction and that qua above mentioned component the present appeal may be dismissed.

7. In view of above mentioned submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as the present appeal is not being pressed qua the judgment of conviction, the same is hereby dismissed, as a result thereof, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, and duly affirmed by learned Appellate Court and the learned Appellate Court upheld the same.

8. Heard.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case the petitioner has been awarded a harsh punishment, as for being in possession of 5 boxes of liquor meant for sale in Chandigarh, he has been sentenced to undergo sentence for a period of 1 year. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of more than 2 months i.e. since 13.05.2011 (when appeal was dismissed and the petitioner was taken into custody) till 19.07.2011, (when the sentence was suspended by this Court). The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that sentence awarded to the petitioner may be restricted to the period he has already undergone.

10. Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that the nature of offence committed by the petitioner warrants a lenient view, and that, in fact, the allegations against the petitioner are for being in possession of liquor meant for sale in Chandigarh, without any permit or licence. According to le