JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition filed by the petitioner Narendra Singh S/o Devi Singh Jodha (Rathore) the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Cr. Appeal No.70/2011 by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal while maintaining the conviction but modified the sentence passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Cr. Regular Case NO.118/2005 vide judgment dated 8.9.2011 whereby the sentence awarded to the petitioner for 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 54 read with Section 19 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, reduced to 6 months by the appellate court. 2. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not challenging the finding of conviction arrived at by the learned trial court and upheld by the Sessions Court but submits that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings since 13.4.2004 in connection with recovery of 480 bottles of liquor, therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to already undergone, therefore, he may be granted benefit of probation of because no other case is reported against the petitioner while maintaining the conviction. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment reported in 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 250 : Ram Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and submits that petitioners may be granted benefit of probation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners further cited judgment reported in 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1427: Rakesh @ Roketiya v. State of Rajasthan in which the accused was convicted for offence under Section 457 and 380 IPC but his sentence was reduced to the period already suffered while maintaining the conviction. So also, judgment reported in 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 267 : Fakroodeen v. State and submits that this revision petition may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case also, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to already undergone or they may be granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relief because he has committed offence against the society under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 5. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any relief because he has committed offence against the society under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 5. After taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon the fact that sword of criminal trial/proceedings is hanging upon the head of the petitioners since the year 2004 and the trial of the petitioner was completed after delay of 9 years and there is no evidence on record to prove previous conviction, therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950 of the petitioner from 2 years to 3 months while maintaining conviction and following the aforesaid judgments. 6. In view of the above, the instant cr. revision petition is partly allowed. The petitioner be released forthwith because he is in custody.Revision Partly Allowed. *******