Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 857 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal, S/o Khimji v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-19

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Judgment : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 05.04.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Appeal No.26/2006 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 28.07.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Crl. Original Case No.65/2006, whereby, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 19/54(a) of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo four months’ SI along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2001, upon receiving a mukhbir information, Narayan Singh, SI conducted a search of residential house of the petitioner and recovered 14 cartoons of foreign liquor without any valid licence and permit. After usual formalities, Police registered a case against the petitioner and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 19/54 IPC, who denied the same and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also exhibited certain documents in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, the petitioner examined one witness and exhibited some documents. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 28.07.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence as mentioned earlier. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 05.04.2007. Hence this revision petition. 7. At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 2001 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about nine days, out of total sentence of four months S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54(a) of Rajasthan Excise Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine imposed by the trial court may also be waived. 8. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. The learned PP 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. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2001 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of about nine days incarceration, out of total sentence of four 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- petitioner has 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 19/54(a) of Rajasthan Excise Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 19/54(a) of Rajasthan Excise Act, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 12. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.