LexRAVINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 937 RAVINDER SINGH A V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2003) APRIL 30, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Sentence/sentencing: Imposition of sentence under ex post facto law - Held: In criminal proceeding, conviction and c sentence under the ex post facto law is prohibited - Sentence imposable on completion of trial would bi9 the sentence imposable on the date of commission of offence - r''l facts, seizure of 5 bottles of illicit liquor- Conviction uls.61(1)(a) and sentence for 6 months - During relevant period, no minimum 0 sentence was imposable uls.61(1)(a) - Considering the quantity of illicit liquor seized and passage of time, conviction is upheld and sentence is restricted to one aln9ady undergone - Punjab Excise Act, 1914- s.61(1)(a)- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(1). E Prosecution case was that accused-appellant was carrying 5 bottles of illicit liquor. The trial C1ourt found him " guilty for the offence punishable under section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to F simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction was upheld by Sessions Court and High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant challenged the conviction. He also challenged sentence on the ground that though the trial Court was of the view that the six G months sentence would be harsh, yet being of the view -r that the minimum sentence imposable was 6 months, imposed the sentence of 6 months; that since occurrence took place on 25.5.1995 at which point of time there was 937 H 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R. A no minimum sentence prescribed; and that the amendment to section 61 (1 )(a) bringing in the concept of minimum sentence was introduced on 23.6.1995. Partly allowing the appeal, the Co,urt B HELD: A bare reading of sectnon 61 (1 )(a) of Punjab Excise Act prior to amendment introduced by Himachal Pradesh Act No.8 of 1995 dated 23.G.1995 makes it clear that though the maximum sentence was prescribed, there was no minimum sentence prescribed. It is trite law that c the sentence imposable on the date of commission of the offence has to determine the sentence imposable on completion of trial. This position is clear even on a bare reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, .1950. Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution what is prohibited 0 is the conviction and sentence in criminal proceedings under ex post facto law. Considering the quantity of illicit liquor seized and the passage of time, the conviction is upheld and the period of sentence is restricted to the one already undergone. [Para 9, 10 and 12] [940-E-G; 941-E- E F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 10.5.2002 of the High F Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Revision No. 100/2000. G H J.S. Attri, Anshu Attri (for Goodwill lndeevar) for the Appellant. Naresh K. Sharma tor the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned - - RAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 939 PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] _., A Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishab!e under ... Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The allegation against the accused-appellant was that B he was carrying illicit liquor in a container wrappe~d in a gunny bag. The accused was driving truck bearing No.HPA-1975 and the truck was stopped and search was carried out. On checking the container, it was found that it contained five bottles of illicit liquor. On analysis by the Chemical Examiner,, the sample c which was collected was found to be illicit liquor. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61 (1 )(a) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. D . 5. The matter was carried in appeal by the appellant before the learn~d Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge before the High Court by filing criminal revision which, by the E impugned order, dismissed the appeal. 6. In su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.