Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1533 (RAJ)

Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-14

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Criminal Appeal No.30/2000, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment dated 13.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, in Criminal Regular Case No.436/1997 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, reduced the sentence for the said offence from two years' simple imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and maintained the fine amount of Rs.500/- and default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Mr. Satishchandra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, sent a report on 11.03.1997 to the effect that on that day, on the information of an informant, he along with police party departed from Sanchore at 06.30 p.m. for conducting Nakabandi and sent SHO Kan Singh with police personnel to conduct Nakabandi at pahadpura. On the way, a suspected Jeep was seen, which was followed and SHO Kan Singh was also instructed to intercept the same from the other side. The jeep met with an accident and the persons sitting therein tried to flee. Kan Singh recognised the driver Mohan Lal Panwar and other persons as Mohan Lal and Hari Ram. Boxes containing liquor bottles were loaded in the jeep. One accused Mohan Lal Kawa was caught while the others made their escape good. The accused, who was caught, told that the other persons were Mohan Lal S/o Haringa and Hari Ram. A huge quantity of liquor and beer was found loaded in the Jeep, which was seized and after taking samples. Upon the aforesaid report, FIR No.71/1997 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 19/54 was submitted against the accused. 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 offence, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 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 offence, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 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 and sentenced the accused for offence under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 13.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 23.05.2001 in the manner stated above. 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 1997. No adverse remark has been passed over the conduct of the petitioner except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26 years. He has remained in custody for some time during trial and some time after passing of the judgment 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 he has remained behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the judgment 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 judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 7. 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 worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1997. 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 26 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and after passing of the judgment in appeal. 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 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 judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, San chore in Criminal Regular Case No.436/1997 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Criminal appeal No.30/2000 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 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.