Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 744 (RAJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State

2025-03-12

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Judgment : 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.28/2006 by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, reduced his sentence as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (East), Bhilwara vide judgment dated 14.07.2005 in Cr. Original Case No.137/2003 (172/1994). The details of the sentence as reduced by the appellate court are as under : Section 16/54 of Excise Act: Six months SI along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1993, upon receiving a secret information, the Excise Inspector Jamnalal Somani along with his team reached at Panchmukhi Balani. They stopped and searched a truck transporting illegal liquor. After usual formalities, Police registered a case against the five persons including the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan. 4. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accused persons including the petitioners, who denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. In defence, no evidence was produced. 7. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.07.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. 8. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.09.2006 and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of Excise Act, the appellate court reduced their sentence as aforementioned. Hence this revision petition. 9. 8. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.09.2006 and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of Excise Act, the appellate court reduced their sentence as aforementioned. Hence this revision petition. 9. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1993 and the petitioners have remained in custody for some time, out of total sentence of six months S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 11. 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. 12. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1993 and the accused-petitioners have remained in custody for some time, out of total sentence of six months S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. 14. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, the sentence awarded to them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is waived. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The record of the courts below, if received, be sent back forthwith.