Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Held, that it was contended that the accused were young man in their early twenties at the time of the commission of the offence, and that time was nothing on the record to suggest any thing adverse as their antecedents and character. Stressing further, the learned counsel suggested that these two Young men be not sent back to jail to share company with hardened criminals, and the beneficent provision of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure, be employed to put them on a reformatory path. Undoubtedly, the legislature has put a bare minimum for the offence of working a still for illicit distillation and the quantity of lahan recovered in the instant case, does suggest that distillation was going on large scale yet keeping in view the concept of punishment, which in recent times, has been undergoing a change, it would be in the fitness of things that an opportunity be given to the petitioners, so that they reform themselves. Accused sentenced of R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- by the trial Court. Sentenced upheld by Sessions Judge. Accused not a previous convict. No reason given by both the Courts below for awarding more than minimum sentence provided for the offence. Revision before High Court. Case held to be fit for imposition of only minimum sentence. Sentence accordingly reduced. Accused sentenced to six months RI. Accused faced trial for 3 Years and was on bail. Fit case for imposition punishment less or than the minimum prescribed . Conviction under Excise Act. Accused of young age and first offender and faced protracted trial f2r 6 years. Accused already on bail. Sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone. Recovery of 20 Kg. of lahan. Accused convicted and sentenced to 6 months R.I .. Accused faced strain of prosecution for 5 years 6 months. Sentence reduced to already undergone . Recovery of illicit liquor. Accused convicted by lower court. Appellate Court remanding the case for fresh trial after recording additional evidence. Six years passed in the process. Order of remand set aside. Accused acquitted. Accused must have undergone considerable expense, tension and harassment during six years. Recovery of illicit liquor. Prosecution continued for six years. This is the sufficient harass- ment for the offence. Accused acquitted on this ground, inter alia. Recovery of opium. Conviction of accused. Trial going on since 1985. Concession given to accused in quantum of sentence. Sentence reduced to already undergone. Sentence. Accused apprehended while distilling illicit liquor. Accused a young man of 25 years and a first offender. Sentence of one year and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Sentence reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Recovery of illicit liquor. Conviction o~ accused. Accused faced protracted trial for 10 years. Sentence reduced to already undergone.