Retrospective enhancement of punishment barred; conviction upheld but minimum sentence could not apply to the earlier offence.

Conviction under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was sustained because illicit liquor was recovered from the truck driven by the appellant, sample analysis confirmed it was illicit, and the courts below had concurrently accepted the prosecution evidence. The later amendment introducing a minimum sentence could not be applied to an offence committed before the amendment, because Article 20(1) prohibits retrospective enhancement of punishment. The sentence had to be governed by the law in force on the date of the offence, resulting in only the period already undergone being counted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was sustainable on the evidence; (ii) Whether the amended provision introducing a minimum sentence could be applied to an offence committed before the amendment.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The record showed recovery of illicit liquor from the truck driven by the appellant, sample analysis confirmed the liquor to be illicit, and the courts below had concurrently found the prosecution case proved. No legal infirmity was found in the appreciation of evidence warranting interference with the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended provision introducing a minimum sentence could be applied to an offence committed before the amendment.

Analysis: The offence had been committed before the amendment that introduced a minimum sentence. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits conviction or punishment under a law that retrospectively increases the penalty for an act already committed. The sentence therefore had to be governed by the law in force on the date of the offence, not by the later amendment.

Conclusion: The amended minimum sentence could not be applied retrospectively and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, but the sentence was restricted to the period already undergone, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 20(1) bars retrospective enhancement of punishment, and the sentence for a criminal offence must be determined by the law in force at the time of commission of the offence.

---