Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1478 (RAJ)

Vikas Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-03

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgement dated 05.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal appeal No.11/2022, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara vide judgement dated 18.01.2022 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.11/2016, however, reduced the sentence for the above offence from 3 years' simple imprisonment to 3 months' simple imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs.20, 000/- and default sentence of 1 month's simple imprisonment was maintained. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 11.01.2016 at 11.00 a.m., Chandraveer Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Ambapura along with Constable Kamla Shankar, both posted at Outpost Padala, placed a blockade on the road in front of of outpost Padala for checking of vehicles. A Jeep Cruiser bearing registration No. RJ-03-TA-1690 came from Banswara side, which was stopped for routine checking. Upon suspicion, search of the vehicle was conducted in the presence of motbir witnesses. A huge quantity of beer and English liquor was loaded therein. The driver of the Cruiser Jeep told his name to be Vikas Kumar S/o Rakma. He could not furnish any licence/explanation for transporting the said liquor, upon which the same was seized and FIR No.16/2016 was registered. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offence 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 14 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 offence under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgement dated 18.01.2022 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.20, 000/-. 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 offence under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgement dated 18.01.2022 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 years along with a fine of Rs.20, 000/-. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgement dated 05.02.2022, whereby while affirming the judgement passed by the trial court, the sentence awarded was reduced from 3 years' simple imprisonment to 3 months' simple imprisonment. 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 2016. The petitioner was aged 22 years of age at that time. 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 7 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for around a month during trial and after 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 and submits that the learned appellate court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner. However, he 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 after passing of the judgement in appeal. 6. However, he 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 after passing of the judgement in appeal. 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 2016. 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 7 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He was a young man aged 22 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 a period of 12 days during trial and thereafter for a period of 18 days after passing of the judgement in appeal. Thus, out of the sentence of 3 months awarded by the appellate court, he has already undergone imprisonment of more than 1 month. 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, out of the sentence of 3 months awarded by the appellate court, he has already undergone imprisonment of more than 1 month. 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the judgement of conviction dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Regular Case No.11/2016 as well as the judgement in appeal dated 05.02.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal appeal No.11/2022 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.