JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28th February, 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short the appellate court hereinafter) in Cr. Appeal No.62/1995 whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant filed against the judgment & order dated 13.3.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short the trial court hereinafter) in Original Cr. Case No. 267 of 1987, State v. Tehal Singh , whereby the accused-petitioner was convicted for offence under section 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act (for short the Act hereinafter) and sentenced to 1 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo for 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 27.4.1986 by Ram Singh - ASi, PS, Hindumalkot alleging therein that on that day, he along with other police personnel went for patrolling. At about 9:00 pm, accused-petitioner came on cycle; there was a gunny bag on the cycle, wherein a tube was lying, from where 60 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered. The accused-petitioner, at the time of seizing of illicit liquor, did not have any licence to keep such liquor with him. He was arrested. Sample from the seized illicit liquor weighing 250 gms. and the said tube were taken and sealed. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner before the trial court under section 54(A) of the Act. Learned trial court framed charge under section 54(A) of the Act against the accused-petitioner. The petitioner-revisionist denied the aforesaid charge and claimed trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution produced as many as 6.witnesses and exhibited six documents in support of its case. The accused-petitioner was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. In his support, the accused-petitioner produced two defence witnesses viz. DW.1 Charan Singh and DW.2 Jeet Singh. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the court heard both the sides and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.1995 and the accused-petitioner was held guilty for offence punishable under section 54(A) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment above passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner-revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the court heard both the sides and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.1995 and the accused-petitioner was held guilty for offence punishable under section 54(A) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment above passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner-revisionist preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the learned trial court. However, the learned appellant court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from 1 year to six months and fine from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 125/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.2.1996 and 13.3.1995 passed by the learned appellate Court and the trial court respectively, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 7. Without going into merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.K. Garg submits that the sentence awarded by the trial court was modified by the learned appellate court to the extent from one years simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment and fine has also been reduced from 250/- to Rs. 125/-; It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained behind the bars for 20 days (from 27.4.1986 to 7.5.1986 and from 28.2.1996 to 8.3.1993). He further submits that the offence under Section 54(A) of the Act is triable by Magistrate. He, therefore, prayed that either the petitioner should be given liberty of probation and/or he should be released on the basis of period already undergone by him as indicated above and that he is not challenging conviction part of the impugned judgment. He also pointed out that the petitioner-revisionist is a poor person. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Revision petition but not seriously. 9. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is facing trial since 1986, I do not think it proper to send him back in judicial custody after more than 25 years. Ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Impugned judgments dated 28.2.1996 and 13.3.1995 passed by the learned appellate court and the trial court respectively are maintained. Ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Impugned judgments dated 28.2.1996 and 13.3.1995 passed by the learned appellate court and the trial court respectively are maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as fine is concerned, it is enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 500/-, which the accused-petitioner shall deposit in the trial court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; in default whereof to undergo 15 days imprisonment. The accused-petitioner is on ball. His bail bonds stand cancelled.Petition partly allowed. *******