Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 262 (RAJ)

Shardul Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Nohar Dist. Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2012 and the judgment dated 15.5.2012 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Nohar in Criminal Regular Case No. 476/2.006. The learned A.C.J.M. convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act and sentenced him to one year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and the Appellate Court has reduced the sentence to a period of six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner but prays that as the field in question has not been conclusively established to be in the possessions and control of the petitioner and as the recovered liquor is also not a very heavy quantity, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel submits that on the date of the commission of the offence no minimum sentence was prescribed for the offence, and therefore, this Court be pleased to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner. He has referred to the statements of PW-4 and PW-7 the Seizure Officer and the Investigation Officer and contends that both the Police Officers have admitted that the field in question was owned by Inder Jat and that no investigation was made from the aforesaid Inder Jat in relation to petitioner's connection with the agricultural field. He, therefore, submits that the sentence awarded to the petitioner be suitably reduced. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She has, however, placed on record a report of the S.H.O. P.S. Nohar dated 3.12.2012, as per which apart from this case no other case is registered against him. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record particularly the judgments impugned and the statements of the two Police Officials viz. PW-4 Banshilal and PW-7 Amir Hassan. Both these officers have admitted that the recovery of the liquor in question was effected from the field of Inder Jat. They have admitted that no investigation was done from Inder Jat in this case. Perused the record particularly the judgments impugned and the statements of the two Police Officials viz. PW-4 Banshilal and PW-7 Amir Hassan. Both these officers have admitted that the recovery of the liquor in question was effected from the field of Inder Jat. They have admitted that no investigation was done from Inder Jat in this case. However, the prosecution has come out with the specific case that the petitioner was available in the field when the recovery was effected. Thus, the counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the petitioner's conviction which is hereby affirmed. 5. But, looking to the over all facts and circumstance of the case and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted carried no minimum sentence on the date of commission of the offence, the Court is of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the petitioner can be suitably reduced. The petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2012 and is reported to have remained in custody for 7 days during investigation. Therefore, he has suffered sentence of nearly two and half months in this case. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act as recorded by the learned Courts below, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Excise Act reduced to the period already undergone by him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Revision partly allowed. *******