Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1271 (RAJ)

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-03

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case No.1290/2009 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years along-with a fine of Rs.8,00,000/- with default sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment for each count. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal bearing No.186/2019, which has been partly allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 18.05.2023, whereby while upholding the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the petitioner was acquitted from the offence under Section 54-A of the Excise Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 02.02.2009, at 02.00 a.m., Mr. Narendra Singh Shekhawat, Assistant Director Enforcement, Excise Enforcement Station Rural, Jodhpur with other personnel, conducted a Nakabandi at Sarhad Lohawas, Main Road Ramasani. At 02.50 a.m. they tried to intercept a Tata 207 bearing Registration No. RJ-22-GA-1773, but the driver tried to flee away. The vehicle was intercepted at 03.00 a.m. on the main road outside Village Lolawas. The three persons, who were present in the vehicle, ran away taking advantage of darkness. Deep Singh and ADE recognized the present petitioner, but could not identify the other two persons. Upon search of the vehicle being conducted, huge quantity of illicit liquor was found loaded therein. The aforesaid liquor was seized and CR No.62/2009 for the offences under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act was registered. After usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and 19 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offences under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 07.03.2019. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for offences under Sections 19/54 and 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 07.03.2019. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 18.05.2023 in the manner stated above. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner do not wish to press the present revision petition in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submission on the point of sentence only. He submits that the petitioner is the only earning person in his family. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It was his first case. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. He is facing trial since the year 2009 and he has languished in jail for a period of around 54 days. Further he has deposited an amount of Rs.94,000/- as fine with the Excise Department. Therefore, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be reduced to Rs.94,000/-. 5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time and has deposited a sum of Rs.94,000/- as fine. 6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is true that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for a period of around 54 days and has deposited an amount of Rs.94,000/- as fine. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is true that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for a period of around 54 days and has deposited an amount of Rs.94,000/- as fine. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. Thus, in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in [2012] 2 SCC 648 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the appellant has already undergone till date and reduce the fine amount to the extent of the amount already deposited. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case No.1290/2009 as well as the judgment of appeal dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal appeal No.186/2019 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioner has undergone till date and the amount of fine already deposited by him would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is not in judicial custody. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. 10. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 11. Record be sent back.