Punjab & Haryana High Court Reduces Sentence in Excise Act Conviction; Upholds Guilt but Applies Reformative Approach

Case Name: Rakesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 1 January 2026

Citation: CRR No.2671 of 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal revision on merits, affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. However, exercising its discretion on the question of sentence, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment from three years to six months while maintaining the statutory minimum fine of ₹1 lakh. The Court held that although the conviction did not suffer from any illegality or perversity, the sentence imposed was excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case and warranted a reformative approach.

Summary: The petitioner was convicted for unlawful possession and sale of liquor without licence pursuant to FIR No.97 dated 13 May 2014 registered at Police Station City Rajpura. During a raid conducted on the basis of secret information, 15 boxes of liquor were recovered from the petitioner’s house. Samples were drawn, sealed, and sent for chemical examination, following which the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

In revision before the High Court, the petitioner expressly did not challenge the conviction and confined his prayer only to reduction of sentence or grant of probation. The State opposed any leniency, citing the gravity of the offence.

The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution case stood fully proved through the testimonies of the official witnesses, whose evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination. The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity or miscarriage of justice, neither of which was found in the present case.

On the issue of sentence, the Court noted that the offence pertained to the year 2014 and that the petitioner had faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for over eleven years. It was also noted that the petitioner had already undergone more than two months of imprisonment and had no other criminal antecedents. While acknowledging the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, the Court held that the sentence of three years was disproportionate and not commensurate with the circumstances of the case.

Emphasising the reformative object of criminal punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation, the Court held that a lenient view was justified.

Decision: The criminal revision was dismissed on merits. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner was reduced from three years to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of ₹1 lakh along with the default sentence was maintained.