Partly allowed

Mahendar Singh and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2023CRLR/547/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence for offences under the Excise Act. While upholding the conviction, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners and waived the imposed fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine waived; bail bonds discharged; conviction maintained.

Mahendar Singh and Anr. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41229]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 547/2004

¶4

Mahendar Singh S/o Shri Goga Singh,

¶5

Bohar Singh S/o Shri Jeet Singh,

¶6

Both by Caste Rai Sikh, R/o Talbara Jheel, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶7

(At present lodged in District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan, Amicus curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶14

Judgment

¶15

29/11/2023

¶16

Mr. Abhishek Charan, Adv. is hereby appointed as Amicus curiae in this case. He shall be paid his remuneration by the Legal Services Authority as per Legal Aid Scheme.

¶17

The matter is being heard & decided today itself.

¶18

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal No.126/2003 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners’ appeal, upheld the judgment dated 19.12.2001 passed in Cr. Case No.272/1996 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under

[2023:RJ-JD:41229]

[CRLR-547/2004]

(2 of 4)

Sections 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo six months’ R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶23

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.1996, at about 11:15 AM, on receiving a secret information, Sh. Boota Singh, Head Constable along with Police team reached near Nali Ki Dhar, where he found the accused petitioners preparing spurious liquor on a ‘ Bhatti’ . The Police team took sample of liquor in bottles and sealed them. On completion of usual procedure, the Police arrested both the petitioners. Thereafter, Police Registered a case for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act against the petitioners and commenced investigation.

¶25

After filing of challan, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶26

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

¶27

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

¶28

Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 30.07.2004. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.

[2023:RJ-JD:41229]

[CRLR-547/2004]

(3 of 4)

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total sentence of six months’ R.I., the accused petitioners have already served about one month of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶33

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners and 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. 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-petitioners.

¶34

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about one month 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 petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

¶35

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under Sections

[2023:RJ-JD:41229]

[CRLR-547/2004]

(4 of 4)

16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act, the sentence awarded to them for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is also waived. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

¶40

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.

¶41

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶42

27-MS/-

Mahendar Singh and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendar Singh and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shafi Mohammed Vs State

Lal Chand Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindrakumar Sharma Vs Gautam Bohra

Imran Hussain Vs State

Birma Devi Vs State of Rajasthan