Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2107 (RAJ)

Sarjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-06

GOVIND MATHUR

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - To question correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 19.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Appeal No.59/2006, this revision petition is preferred. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment impugned affirmed the judgment and order dated 25.8.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Original Case No.74/1999 convicting the revision-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16/54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and awarded sentence for a period of four months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and further to undergo simple imprisonment in the event of default of payment of fine. 2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that on 15.9.1998, the Station House Officer (Excise), Raisinghnagar while patrolling received a secret information and by acting upon that a search was made at the house of the revision-petitioner wherein 70 bottles of country made liquor were recovered. A criminal case thus was registered and after regular investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. After examining the evidence available on record, learned trial court convicted the revision-petitioner and sentenced accordingly. The appellate court affirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial court. In this revision petition, an effort is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to question correctness of the conviction on the count that the entire liquor said to be recovered from the residence of the petitioner was not produced before the trial court. 3. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. 4. The prosecution witnesses in quite definite terms stated that 70 bottles of country made liquor were recovered from the residence of the accused-revision petitioner. There is no just reason to disbelieve these witnesses. Suffice to mention here that a sample of recovered material was taken by the investigating agency and same was sent for its examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report which is available on record as Exhibit-5. The Forensic Science Laboratory report was also put for explanation as an incriminating evidence before the accused revision- petitioner while availing his explanation as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned trial court as well as appellate court has taken all this material into consideration and convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under the Rajasthan Excise Act. The Forensic Science Laboratory report was also put for explanation as an incriminating evidence before the accused revision- petitioner while availing his explanation as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned trial court as well as appellate court has taken all this material into consideration and convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under the Rajasthan Excise Act. I do not find any just reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of two courts below, as such, the conviction recorded by the trial court is maintained. So far as the sentence part is concerned, suffice to mention here that the petitioner has already remained behind the bars for a period of more than 40 days. The incident in question is of the year 1998 and nothing is brought into knowledge of the court by learned Public Prosecutor about subsequent criminal conduct of the petitioner. 6. Looking to these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision petition by modifying the sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court fora period of four months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- to the period of simple imprisonment for a period already undergone with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The fine of Rs. 5000/- is required to be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court on 30.11.2012. In the event of failure to deposit the fine, the petitioner shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The bail bonds and sureties furnished by the petitioner in pursuant to the order dated 25.5.2009 shall stand discharged after depositing the fine referred above.Petition Disposed of. *******