JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Prabhu convict from Jail against the judgement of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated October 25, 1980, by which his appeal against his conviction and sentence under sections 54(a) and (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act, was dismissed. It will not be out of place to mention that Prabhu, applicant, was tried by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, for offences punishable under sections 54(a) and (d) of the Act and was found gunty thereof. The learned Magistrate after convicting him for the aforesaid offences awarded to him sentences of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of tine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecution case against the applicant-was as follows:- 3. On May 13, 1972, Dalpat Singh, Excise Officer, Excise Preventive Force upon receiving a credible information regarding manufacturing of illicit wine, reached village Shyamgarh along with his party and after taking Motbirs with him went to the house of Prabhu, applicant, who was, at that time, seen manufacturing illicit liquor on a working still, Dalpat Singh saw fermented wash and, earthen container and took illicit wine also from the brass pot, i.e. Pipa Bhatti, Nal rubber, iron bucket etc. from the spot and sealed them in the presence of Motbirs, He then arrested the applicant and, later on, sent the samples of fermented wash and illicit wine to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner analysed the samples and sent a report that the samples of fermented wash and the wine sent to him were of the strength different from the strength prescribed by the State Government for the wash and the liquor. Upon receipt of the report, Dalpat Singh collected other necessary evidence in the case and, eventually, submitted a charge-sheet against Prabhu, applicant, under sections 54(a) and (d) of the Act in the court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The learned Magistrate after completion of the trial of the applicant for the said offences convicted ana sentenced him. in the manner stated above. The learned Magistrate after completion of the trial of the applicant for the said offences convicted ana sentenced him. in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentences, the applicant preferred an appeal in the court of the Sessions Judge, Sikar, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed his conviction and sentence The applicant has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this revision application through jail. As the applicant was in jail and could not engage any lawyer, Shri J.K. Dhingra was appointed as amicus curiae to argue the revision application in this court. The revision application was admitted by this Court on January 16, 1981 and the applicant's sentence was suspended upon his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this Court. 4. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. J.K. Dhingra learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs Kamla Jain, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant could not succeed in challenging the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the applicant. There is reliable evidence of Kishore Singh and Dalpat Singh to prove that the applicant was seen manufacturing illicit wine on a working still. Both these witnesses claimed to have seen the applicant in putting fire in the furnace on which a earthen pot containing wash was kept and the wash boiling. The earthen pot had a hole in which one end of the rubber pipe was fitted and the other end thereof was lying in a brass pot. There was a bucket also having water therein in which the brass pot was placed and prop of illicit wine were falling, through the pipe. Both these witnesses formed that there were about 5 bottles of wine in the brass pot. Dalpat Singh further claimed to have seized all these articles in the presence of Kishore Singh, who also testified to the seizure. Dalpat Singh, further stated that he took samples of fermented wash and illicit wine in the presence of Kishore Singh, who also testified to this fact. It is no doubt true that Devi Singh Motbir did not support the prosecution case, but his evidence is not reliable as he admitted to have signed the memos Ex. Dalpat Singh, further stated that he took samples of fermented wash and illicit wine in the presence of Kishore Singh, who also testified to this fact. It is no doubt true that Devi Singh Motbir did not support the prosecution case, but his evidence is not reliable as he admitted to have signed the memos Ex. P. 1, P.2 and P.3 without any pressure or persuasions from the Excise Officer. Devi Singh merely stated that the memos were not read over to him before he was required to sign them. His above statement does not appear to be true, because if the memos were not read over to him and he was asked by Dalpat Singh to sign them without having been read over to him he could refuse to put his signatures thereto. It appears that he gave altogether a different version in the trial court in order to favour the applicant. Consequently, am unable to hold that Dalpat Singh, Excise Officer and his party concocted a false case against the applicant without seeing him manufacturing illicit wine on a working still, There is nothing on the record to show that Kishore Singh and Dalpat Singh were inimical to the applicant at the time when his house was raided and materials, still implements, illicit wine etc. "were seized therefrom. The prosecution has further led cogent evidence of Bashir Khan PW 3 and Jagdish Prasad Sharma PW 4 Excise Inspector to show that the sample of wine and wash were sent to the Chemical Examiner with their seals intact and unbroken. 5. The applicant denied the fact of recovery of a workable still and fermented wash and illicit wine from his house. He examined one witness in his defence, namely, Bheru whose evidence has been rightly discarded by the trial court for reasons r with which I fully agree and which I need not reproduce here in my judgment. Hence it may be safely held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the learned counsel for the applicant could not succeed in assailing the evidence of Dalpat Singh and Kishore Singh who found the applicant manufacturing illicit wine on a working still. No interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the applicant is called for. 6. No interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the guilt of the applicant is called for. 6. As regards sentence, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the applicant by the trial court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar. on appeal is reduced to a tern already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- and the term of imprisonment in default thereof. The above contention is not without force. From the record it appears that the applicant has already served out rigorous imprisonment for more than 3 months as he was released on bail on January 30, 1981 in pursuance of an order of this Court dated January 16, 1981 suspending his sentence during the pendency of his revision application. In my opinion' no useful purpose will be served, if the applicant is sent again to jail, especially when he has served out sentence for more than three months out of the term of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The ends of justice would be met in, while maintaining the sentence of fine and the term of imprisonment if default of payment of fine, his substantive sentence of six months, rigorous imprisonment is reduced to a term already undergone by him. 7. Hence, I partly accept this revision application and while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under sections 54 (a) and 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, reduce the substantive sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment to a term already undergone by him. The fine of Rs. 200/-, and the term of simple imprisonment for two months in default of payment thereof is, however, maintained. Two months' time is given to the applicant to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court, failing which necessary action under the law shall be taken against him. The applicant is already on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. Sd/- K.D. Sharma, C.J. *******