Partial revision petition allowed. Conviction upheld for illegal liquor manufacturing under Rajasthan Excise Act. Sentence reduced to time already undergone. Fine maintained with three months to pay or face remand.
Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with three months time for payment; bail discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:10495]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1031/2008
----Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
| State of Rajasthan | |
|---|---|
| ----Respondent | |
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms. Kirti Pareek Mr. N.L. Joshi |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Judgment
01/03/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 17.09.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No.14/2005 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners’ appeal, upheld the judgment dated 03.03.2005 passed in Cr. Case No.216/2002 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Section 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced each of them to undergo two
[2024:RJ-JD:10495]
[CRLR-1031/2008]
(2 of 4)
years’ R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo four months’ S.I.
Brief facts of the case are that while investigating in another matter, on 04.01.2002, Shri Ram Pratap, SHO, PS Sri Vijaynagar reached at the field of one Udaram and where he found the present petitioners preparing country-made liquor on a ‘ Bhatti’ without any permit or licence . After collecting the samples of country-made liquor and on completion of usual procedure, the Police arrested all the petitioners and registered a case against them for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. In defence, seven witnesses were examined.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.
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 17.09.2008. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.
[2024:RJ-JD:10495]
[CRLR-1031/2008]
(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 2002 and out of total sentence of two years’ R.I., the accused petitioners have already served about fifteen days 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.
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.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2002 and the petitioners have so far undergone a period of about fifteen days in custody out of two years’ 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 Section 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners’ conviction for offence under Section
[2024:RJ-JD:10495]
[CRLR-1031/2008]
(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 hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo two months’ S.I. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
250-Rashi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentences imposed on petitioners for violation of Rajasthan Excise Act should be reduced considering the delay in trial and time already spent in custody.
Whether the fine imposed under the Rajasthan Excise Act requires modification or should be maintained as is.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Badrinarayan S/o Rukmal
Dilipkumar S/o Udaram
Prakash @ Omprakash S/o Govindram
Bhupendra Kumar S/o Udaram
State of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
