Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 752 (RAJ)

Hakam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-25

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Accused petitioners Hakam Singh and Jaswant Singh have filed this criminal revision assailing the judgment dated 20.8.1998 passed by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Regular Appeal No. 5/1998 whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld the conviction and sentence passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sadul Sahar vide order dated 8.12.1997 whereby both the petitioners were convicted for offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentences for rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 200/- and further to undergo sentence of one month's simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 21.9.1994, Excise Inspector Shri Jai Narain along with raid party raided the house of Hakam Singh and Jaswant Singh. They ran away from house and could not be caught on chasing them but 75 bottles of liquor were recovered and seized from their house for which they were tried and sentenced by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court as mentioned above. 3. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the part of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act but prays that the offence is 22 years old, petitioner Hakam Singh is now around 70 years old and petitioner Jaswant Singh is around 50 years old. Both the accused-petitioners have remained in judicial custody from 20.8.1998 to 2.9.1998. He submits that no purpose will be served by putting the accused-petitioners behind the bars after protracted period of 22 years. He further submits that there had been no conviction to their credit for any of the offences prior to this Incident and even thereafter. Looking to all these facts, accused-petitioners may be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or their sentence may be Induced to the period already undergone by them in judicial custody. 4. In support of his prayer, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments :- (1) Hazari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1978 Cr.L.R. p. 514; (2) Sona Singh v. State, reported in 1990 RCC p. 414 and; (3) Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015(3) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) p. 1352. 5. 4. In support of his prayer, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following judgments :- (1) Hazari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1978 Cr.L.R. p. 514; (2) Sona Singh v. State, reported in 1990 RCC p. 414 and; (3) Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015(3) CJ (Cri.) (Raj.) p. 1352. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submits that 75 bottles of liquor were recovered from the residential house of the accused-petitioners. He further submits that there is provision of minimum sentence of six months for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the prayer made by the Counsel for the accused-petitioners is liable to be rejected. 6. In view of the rival contentions made by both the sides, I gave my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and also thoroughly perused the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners. 7. In case of Hazari (supra), the matter belongs to the offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act for which minimum sentence of six months is prescribed but Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. is fit to be extended to the accused. 8. In case of Sona Singh (supra) also, offence punishable under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was involved but taking into account the provision contained under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it was found justified to extend the benefit under the Act. 9. In case of Narendra Singh (supra), recovery of 480 bottles of liquor was made and the offence involved was for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act but looking to the fact that the petitioners therein was facing criminal proceedings for nine years, there was no evidence on record regarding his previous conviction, the sentences awarded to him was reduced to the period, he has already undergone in custody. 10. In view of the above judgments and taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is as old as 22 years and the accused-petitioners have been facing trauma of criminal proceedings for such a prolonged period, it appears that no purpose will be served by putting them behind the bars now. 11. 10. In view of the above judgments and taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is as old as 22 years and the accused-petitioners have been facing trauma of criminal proceedings for such a prolonged period, it appears that no purpose will be served by putting them behind the bars now. 11. In view of above, the accused-petitioners appear entitled to lenient view and the sentence awarded to them is liable to be reduced to the period they, have already undergone in custody. 12. In view of above, while maintaining the conviction against the accused petitioners Hakam Singh and Jaswant Singh for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, this criminal revision is partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners is reduced to the period they have already undergone in custody. Bail bonds executed by both the accused-petitioners stand cancelled. Revision partly allowed.