Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1252 (RAJ)

Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

2016-08-31

PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

body2016
ORDER Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. The accused-petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No.14/2014 whereby the learned appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 374 Cr.P.C. affirmed and upheld the judgment and order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dataramgarh (District Sikar) in Criminal Case No.135/2007 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner-Shri Kailash for offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also convicted him for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It was further ordered that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently. Learned trial Court also convicted accused-petitioner-Shri Bhanwar Lal for offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners now are not willing to challenge their conviction and their only prayer is to reduce their respective sentences to the period of imprisonment already served/undergone by them during the course of investigation, trial and after dismissal of their appeal. It was submitted that although many other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner-accused-Shri Kailash from time to time for various offences but as per record available in most of the cases he has been acquitted after trial. It was further submitted on behalf of petitioner-Shri Kailash that he has already served imprisonment of about five months in the present case and, therefore, looking to the quantity of the illicit liquor allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court, it would serve the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the extent of imprisonment already served by him. So far as accused-petitioner-Shri Bhanwar Lal is concerned, it was submitted on his behalf that no other criminal case has ever been registered against him and he has already served more than four and half months imprisonment in this case and, therefore, looking to the quantity of the illicit liquor allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and the persons acquitted by the trial Court, it would serve the interest of justice if the period of imprisonment awarded to him is also reduced to the period of imprisonment already served/undergone by him. It was submitted that the incident is of the year 2006 when no minimum sentence of imprisonment was prescribed for the offences for which the petitioners have been convicted. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that so far as accused-petitioner-Shri Kailash is concerned, looking his criminal antecedents it would not be in the interest of justice if the sentence awarded to him in the present case is reduced to the extent of imprisonment already served by him which is even less than six months presently. It was further submitted that so far as accused-petitioner-Shri Bhanwar Lal is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of prayer made by him this Court has jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order. 4. As submitted, conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is thus maintained and the revision petition filed by them to that extent is, hereby, dismissed. So far as the sentence part of the judgment is concerned, it is an fact that petitioner-Shri Kailash has already undergone/served imprisonment for a period of about 5 months whereas petitioner-Shri Bhanwar Lal has undergone/served imprisonment for more than four and half months. Although, petitioner-Shri Kailash is said to have been involved in many other criminal cases but looking to the quantity of the illicit liquor allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and also looking to the fact that in most of the cases he has been acquitted after trial, I am of the considered view that it would serve interest/ends of justice if the prayer made on behalf of petitioner-Shri Kailashy is accepted. So far as petitioner-Shri Bhanwar Lal is concerned, it is an admitted fact that no other criminal case has ever been registered against him and he has also served/undergone more than four and half months of imprisonment and also looking to the quantity of the illicit liquor allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners, I am of the further view that it would serve interest/ends of justice if the prayer made on behalf of this petitioner is also accepted. Thus, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners is reduced and modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by them. It is made clear if the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of fine they will suffer simple imprisonment for the period as ordered by the trial Court. With modification as aforesaid, the revision petition to that extent is partly allowed and disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.