Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1464 (RAJ)

Mahaveer v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-01

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgement dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Camp Rawatsar) in Criminal appeal No.82/2018, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.309/2011; whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and for each count he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs.20, 000/- with default sentence of 1 month's simple imprisonment. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 03.11.2010 at 11.00 p.m. on returning to Police Station, Mr. Sundar Lal, ASI submitted a report to the effect that on that day at 08.00 p.m. he along with other police personnel departed for patrolling and Nakabandi. At 08.20 p.m. they started conducting Nakabandi at Khoda Chaurha. At 08.30 p.m. they stopped an Esteem Car bearing registration No. UP-32-AK-5811 coming from towards Rawatsar. The driver told his name to be Mahaveer S/o Nandram. On conducting a search of the car, 9 cartons of Haryana manufactured country liquor was found therein and when the driver failed to furnish any licence or permit for keeping in possession the aforesaid liquor, the same was seized after taking samples and the accused was arrested. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.442/2010 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offences under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgement dated 15.06.2018. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 05.07.2023 affirming the judgement passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2010. The petitioner was aged 37 years of age at that time. He is a poor person. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgement. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 13 years. He remained in custody for some time during trial and now he is in judicial custody after passing of the judgement in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits 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 during trial and he is presently in judicial custody after passing of the judgement in appeal. 6. 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 judgement of conviction. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction is maintained. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 2010. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 13 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He was 37 years at the time of the incident. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and presently, he is in judicial custody after passing of judgement in appeal dated 05.07.2023. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made 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 and 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 is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner for each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him. 8. 8. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction dated 15.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.309/2011 as well as the judgement in appeal dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Camp Rawatsar) in Criminal appeal No.82/2018 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Section 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioner has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back to the trial court.