Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was convicted under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act for he was found to be mobile on a motor cycle carrying with him illicit liquor to the extent of twenty bottles. The motor cycle was ordered to be confiscated by the trial Court. The petitioner was awarded the minimum sentence imposeable under the law, i.e., six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/, in default two month''s rigorous imprisonment.

Notice was issued to be Advocate General, Punjab regarding confiscation of motor cycle and to consider whether the petitioner be released on probation. I have heard learned counsel for both side on the aforesaid two aspects.

Section 78 of the Punjab Excise Act provides that whenever an offence punishable under the Act is committed, the conveyance used in carrying such receptable, in which any intoxicant was found, shall be liable to confiscation, provided in lieu of order of confisaction, the Court may give the owner of the thing liable to be confiscated an option to pay such fine, as the Court think fit. Concededly, the motor cycle used conveyance was owner by the petitioner. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to give an option to the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 1,000/ as fine in lieu of confiscation of the motor cycle.

With regard to the other claim of the petitioner that he be released on probation on the ground that he is the sole breadearner of his family and is a first offender, it is to be noticed that the crime of possession of illicit liquor to the extent of twenty bottles was committed by the petitioner in tehsil Phillaur, district Jullundur, while mobile, when his ordinary place or residence is at Ludhiana. The nefarious activity indulged in by the petitioner ex facie discloses that he is a bootlegger and is not confined to the jurisdiction of one Court. His place of residence being at Ludhiana and the Court of conviction begin at Phillaur, it would wellhigh be impossible for a Probation Officer working in the jurisdiction of Phillaur to keep an eye on the activities of the petitioner at Ludhiana or elsewhere. Having regard to this fact that the petitioner is not an ordinary resident of tehsil Phillaur, his claim to be released on probation either under section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, or under the Probation of Offenders Act is untenable; more so, when he has been found to be a mobile bottlegger. Thus, his prayer for release on probation is decline.

Except to the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/ in lieu of confiscation of the moter cycle, the order regarding sentence need not be interfered with. Dismissed in these terms.