1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court affirms conviction for illicit liquor; sentence limited to time served.</h1> The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for carrying illicit liquor. The court considered the ... - Issues involved: Challenge to conviction u/s 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914.The appellant was convicted for carrying illicit liquor in a container wrapped in a gunny bag in a truck. The Chemical Examiner confirmed the liquor was illicit. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the appellant to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Judge and High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant argued that the minimum sentence was introduced after the offense date, but the respondent contended that the relevant date was the conviction date, not the offense date.Prior to the amendment, Section 61(1)(a) of the Act did not prescribe a minimum sentence, only a maximum of three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs. 2,000. The appellant argued that the minimum sentence was introduced after the offense date, relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits conviction and sentencing under ex post facto laws. The court considered the quantity of liquor seized and the time passed, upholding the conviction but limiting the sentence to time already served.The judgment allowed the appeal to the extent of restricting the sentence to the period already undergone, discharging the bail bonds executed, and setting aside the previous orders.