High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/271/2021disposed of

Jagtar Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana

2023-08-31Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill8 pages

2023:PHHC:114435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.08.2023 JAGTAR SINGH AND ANR ... Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Chokkar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG Haryana.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)

!"# $

% & &'

&( '

) !"# $

% &'

&( '

! +

,- &./& 012 4. !4& + *

* &'

5 without any licence &

-2- / * &

6 7 4&

8 9 'At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only pressing this petition on the quantum of sentence and not on the merits thereof, with them having been sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and with a fine of ₹2,000/- each imposed upon then, after their conviction for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914.

He further submits that the petitioners are first time offenders and consequently they may be granted the benefit of probation for the period of the sentence upon them, rather than actual incarceration...........' ! & &

. He submits that the present FIR was registered on 21.06.2013 and that the petitioners have been facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 10 years approximately and that out of the total sentence of one year, the petitiones have already undergone the actual sentence of about 5 months. 7.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order dated 07.05.2003 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Buta Singh vs State of Punjab, 2004 (3) RCR (Criminal) 914; order dated 21.01.2015 passed in Nachhattar Singh vs State of Punjab, 2015 (3) RCR (Criminal) 281 and order 07.10.2010

-3passed in Shishpal and another vs State of Haryana, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 267.

Alternatively, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners are the first offenders with no previous antecedents, their case may be considered for release on probation. Such prayer is made on the ground that the trial has protracted for the last 10 years and out of the total sentence, the petitioners have already undergone about five months.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Courts below have wrongly sentenced the petitioners for one year, whereas as per the statutory provisions of Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, the petitioners ought to have been sentenced for a minimum period of two years. He would, thus, argue no indulgence is called for in the present petition.

10.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11.

5 &

012 !4:

6 #&

-4-

& '

;

* 1( * +

& 12.#*

.6<= 9

# $

& '

(

# !

)

) %

(

& '

"&*'

" "

"& '

, %

& '

! "

-5-

* "

" "

( !

# " !

&*'

! " 2( &! * 2('

"" %

&*'

" "

0 $

-6-

&*'

# + 2

# "

& 3 $

"* 2" * 4

20/

20(

# !

! "

" 5

" %

(

-7-

# !

$ . !

* " "

! "

# !

7 /

* <( =& 12.##* 6! 6 >

;

1( < =&

-8-

7 &.6"

! 1

& -

1 % @

(

Disposed of in the above terms.

31.08.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No