Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1132 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-25

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment/order dated 10.6.2010 passed by ADJ No. 2, Alwar in Cr. Appeal No. 100/2009, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the judgment/order dated 30.7.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 68/2004 convicting the petitioners for the offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentencing them to undergo 1 years Rl with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months R1 has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.9.2003, one Shri Bhagirath Mai, PO. was coming from Ghodapher Choraha at about 1.30 PM with EPF party Then one tractor tried to turn back as they saw the police party. The police party stopped them and asked their name and address and recovered illegal liquor from the said vehicle. The police, after completing all the formalities lodged the FIR and arrested the petitioners. Thereafter the police filed the challan against the petitioners for the offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. The trial court framed the charges against the accused persons. They denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecutor produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C After hearing both the sides the trial court, vide judgment dated 30.7.2008 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as indicated above. Against the said judgment, the appeal was filed. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 10.6.2010 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners. 4. Against the said judgment, the appeal was filed. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 10.6.2010 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/order passed by the trial court. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he is no challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the court below, but he only requesting to this court that alleged occurrence took place in the ye; 2003 i.e. 12 years ago from today; the petitioners are facing the trial since the last 12 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioners were young are now the petitioners are old aged persons; the petitioner have remained custody for nearly about 45 days; the petitioners are married persons an having children of marriageable age; they are not previously convict; persons, hence either the petitioners should be given the benefit of probatic under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.; anti: not; then they should be released for the period already undergone by them confinement, as indicated here-in-above. In support of his contentions, he If placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Suryan Singh v. State, reported in 1985 (2) WLN 276 (Raj.). 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused relevant material on record. 7. In support of his contentions, he If placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Suryan Singh v. State, reported in 1985 (2) WLN 276 (Raj.). 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 6.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused relevant material on record. 7. Although in the case of Surgyan Singh v. state reported in 1985 (2) WLN 276 (Raj.) the Coordinate Bench of this Court has given the ben; of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act by record' special reasons, but even then I do not think it proper to release the petition on probation by recording the special reasons, but looking to the facts; circumstances of the case that alleged occurrence took place in the year I i.e. 12 years ago from today; the petitioners are facing the trial since the last 12 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioners were young and now the petitioners are old aged persons; the petitioners have remained in custody for nearly about 45 days; the petitioners are married persons and having children of marriageable age; as also the judgment delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Buliya v. State reported in 1998 RCC 502 (Raj.), wherein the accused petitioners was/were released for the period already undergone by him/them in custody, in my view ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is also reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) The revision petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed; (ii) Their conviction is maintained; (iii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.