Holding

The sentence must be determined according to the law in force at the time of the offence; the conviction is upheld but the sentence is reduced to the period already served.

Summary

Ravinder Singh was stopped while transporting five bottles of illicit liquor and was convicted under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, receiving a six‑month imprisonment. He appealed, contending that at the time of the offence (25 May 1995) no minimum sentence was prescribed, and that the amendment introducing a six‑month minimum on 23 June 1995 could not be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court examined the principle that the penalty applicable on the date of commission governs the sentence, invoking Article 20(1) of the Constitution which bars ex post facto laws. It held that while the conviction could stand, the sentence could not be increased beyond what the law then required, and therefore limited the term to the period already served. The Court consequently allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence but upholding the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction and sentence can be imposed under a law amended after the commission of the offence.
Whether the amendment introducing a minimum sentence constitutes an ex post facto law prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Which date—commission of the offence or date of conviction—determines the applicable penalty.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 20(1)
Punjab Excise Act, 1914s. 61(1)(a)

Subjects

ex post factominimum sentenceArticle 20(1)Punjab Excise Actconvictionsentencingretrospective lawillicit liquor

Judgment

[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 C ourt found him
1

guilty for the offence punishable under section 61(1)(a)
" of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and sentenced him to
simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction was F
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.
J.S. Attri, Anshu Attri (for Goodwill lndeevar) for the
Appellant.
Naresh K. Sharma tor the Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
the parties.
H 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned -
RAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 939
PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
_.,
Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding A
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
which was collected was found to be illicit liquor.
c
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 support of the appeal learned senior counsel for the
;'
appellant submitted that- the evidence adduced by the
..._ prosecution to establish the accusations was not sufficient to
record the conviction. Additionally, it is submitted that though F
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the view that six
months' sentence would be harsh, yet, being of the view that
the minimum sentence imposable was six months, imposed the
sentence of six months. According to learned senior counsel
for the appellant, the occurrence took place on 25th May 1995 G
at which point of time there was no minimum sentence
""' prescribed as amendment to Section 61(1)(a) bringing in the
concept of minimum sentence was introduced by Himachal
Pradesh Act No.8/1995 dated 23rd June 1995.
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.

A 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that the relevant date would be the date of conviction
and not the date of commission of the offence.

8. Prior to the amendment by the Himachal Pradesh
8 Amendment Act, Section 61(1)(a) read as follows:
"61.(1) Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport,
manufacture, possession, etc.: Whoever, in contravention
of any section of this Act or of any rule, notification issued
or given thereunder or order made, or of any license,
C permit or pass granted under this Act,-
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures,
collects or possesses any (intoxicant); or
(b) ........ .
D
(c) ........ .

shall be punishable for every such offence with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and with fine upto two thousand rupees and if found in
E possession of a working still for the manufacture of any
intoxicant shall be punishable with the minimum sentence
of six months imprisonment and fine of two hundred
rupees."
9. A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear
F that though the maximum sentence was prescribed, there was
no minimum sentence prescribed.
10. It is trite law that the sentence imposable on the date
of commission of the offence has to determine the sentence
G imposable on completion of trial. This. position is clear even on
a bare reading of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950
(in short, 'the Constitution'). The said provision reads as under:

"20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.-(1) No
person shall be convicted of any offence except for
H
RAVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 941
PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-1

violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of A
the act charged as an offence, nor be sl.bjected to a
penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted
under the law in force at the time of the 'commission of the
offence."
B
11. Wills in his Constitutional Law of the United States (at
page 516) brought out a lucid classification of the penal law
which are ex post facto :
1
(i) when they make criminal an act which was innocent
when done; c
(ii) when they make a crime greater than it was when
__,...
A

it was committed;

(iii) when they make the punishment greater than the
punishment was at the time the act was committed; D

(iv) when they change the rule of evidence as to deprive
a defendant of a substantive right; and

(v) when they make retrospective qualifications for an E
offence which are out a proper exercise of the
police power.

.... Under Article 20(1) of the Constitution what is prohibited is the
conviction and sentence in criminal proceedings under ex post
facto law. F

12. Considering the quantity of illicit liquor seized and the
passage of time, while upholding the conviction, we restrict the
period of sentence to the one a~ready undergone.
G
13. The bail bonds executed to give effect to the order of
bail dated 09th September 2002 sh~ll stand discharged.

14. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

D.G. Appeal partly allowed. H