Prem Lal v. State

% + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI PREM LAL Order Reserved on: September 76 2077 Order Pronounced on: October 27. 2077 Crl. Rev. Petition No. 565/20O8 rhroush: Mr.Raman #;:;t l31fil.*urn Kumar, Advocates. VCTSUS ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) for state THE STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶1Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2To be referred to Reporter or not?

¶3Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR, I.

¶1On 1.4.1989 at about I2.3O p.m., upon being found in illegal possession of 16 caftons of illicit liquor having 3200 pouches in all, petitioner and his vehicle containing the aforesaid contraband were apprehended at the Subhash Nagar traffic red light turning on the main Najafgarh Road, Delhi.

¶2Petitioner was prosecuted for committing the offence under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, LgL4 and since the petitioner had chosen to contest the case of being in possession of illicit liquor set up against him, at trial the N l9 Crl. Rev. P. N o .566 / 2OO8 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. d .\ deposition of six witnesses was record.ed which comprised of the evidence of patrolling party, i.e., ct. Ved prakash (PW-2), constabte Batjit (pw-3) and of HC Rajbir singh (pw-5). Formal evidence is of the Duty officer (pw-4) and that of the MHCM (pw-l). The investigation of this case wa: conducted by HC Maman (pW-6). Regarding destruction of the case property under the oriJer deposition of the concerned official, 1). of the Court, there is i.e., Rajesh Tayal (CW-

¶3The plea of the petitioner at trial was of innocence and denial of the prosecution case, which did not cut any ice, resulting in the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court, who had imposed the minimum sentence of six months with fine, which was challenged in appeal by the petitioner but to no avail.

¶4In this revision petition, it was urged by the petitioner's counser that the alleged recovery has been planted upon the petitioner and the report regarding the recovery being incriminating is not correct as the sample drawn from the recovered contraband was not made representative and thus, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful warranting acquittal of the petitioner. on the quantum of sentence, it was urged that the petitioner had remained behind bars for about a month and being a first offender, he is entiiled to benefit of probation.

¶5Learned Additional standing counsel for the state points out that the offence committed by the petitioner comes within the ambit of section 61 (1), (c) of punjab S-- Crl.Rev.P.No,SG6/2008 I Excise Act, l9L4 which entails minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment, with no proviso for awarding less than the minimum sentence prescribed.

¶6On merits, it was urged by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that the twin contentions raised before this Court were never raised before the courts below and on the face of it there is no substance in the assertion of the petitioner thai such a heavy recovery has been planted upon the petitioner and the contention that the sample drawn was not made representative is also without basis as there is no worthwhile challenge to the report certifying that the recovered contraband is illicit liquor. So, this petition deserves dismissal. i

¶7Submissions advanced for the first time before the Revisionajl Court on factual aspects are not required to be considered nor .re-appreciation of evidence ought to be done by the Revisional Court. However, the plea of the petitioner of the heavy recovery of illicit liquor being a-planted upon him cannot be accepted on the face of it as the petitioner gives no reason why such a heavy recovery would be planted upon him by the police, especiafly when he fails to show as to why the police was inimical to him. Therefore, this plea is outrightly rejected being untenable.

¶8So far as the second plea of the petitioner of sample drawn being not made representative is concerned, the same cannot be entertained for the reason that there is no challenge to the report certifying the recovered contraband to be of illicit liquor. ln this view of the matter, the last plea Crl.Rev.P. No .566/2008 r ofthepetitionerofleniencyonthequantumofsentence deserves to be noticed only for the purpose of being rejected as the offence committed by the petitioner entails the minimum sentence which has been awarded to him'

¶9fn Chand Gunta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh'

(2009)15 SCC 94, while taking note of the fact that Section 6lofPunjabExciseAct,L}L prescribesaminimum punishment, the benefit of Probation of offenders Act, 1958 was declined.

¶10Finding that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity, this petition is dismissed' Bail bonds of the petitioner are forfeited. lt is directed that petitioner be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of the sentence awarded to him. Trial Court be apprised of this order to ensure its comPliance.

¶11This petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions' October 2L, ?OLL pkb Sutull-cAUR) Crl.Rev.P.No.566/2008