AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for petitioners initially made a feeble attempt to challenge the conviction of the petitioners, who are father and son, on the ground that despite prior information with the investigating agency that the petitioners were distilling illicit liquor in the courtyard of their house in village Cheeka, no independent witness was joined in the recovery, violating the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is evidence to the effect that the Investigating Officer sent a constable to fetch witnesses of the locality, but neither the Lambardar nor the Chowkidar was available. None of two villagers expressed willingness to join the raid. In this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioners says that since the petitioners are first offenders and are on bail since August 22, 1985, it would be fair to let them remain at large on ordering their release on probation. I think this step in the circumstances would be right. Accordingly, I order release of the petitioners on their executing a bond each in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ with two sureties of the like amount, binding themselves to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, for a period of two years, and further binding themselves to come and receive sentence when called upon by the Court to do so. Let the bond be executed within one month before the trial Magistrate. The petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/ each as costs of the prosecution. Fine, if paid by the petitioners, be diverted to that account.
JUDGMENT accordingly.