Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 761 (RAJ)

Ramnivas S/o Andaram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-08

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 09/2002 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, upheld the judgment dated 05.10.2001 passed in Cr. Case No. 102/1996 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo six months’ R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ S.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.1995, during blockade a jeep bearing registration number RJ-19-C-1084 being driven by the petitioner was coming from Makrana. Upon conducting search, 16 plastic bags were recovered from the jeep and each of them were containing 100 pouches of country-made liquor. After collecting the samples of country-made liquor and on completion of usual procedure, the Police arrested the petitioner and registered a case against him for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and commenced investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 05.10.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence. 6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2004. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. 7. 6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.03.2004. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1995 and out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., the accused petitioner has already served about 26 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1995 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about 26 days in custody out of six months’ of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 19/54 of Excise Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 19/54 of Excise Act, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.