Kishansingh Urf Krashna S/O Phoolsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:11546]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 413/2025

Kishansingh @ Krashna S/o Phoolsingh, R/o Vijay Nagar Colony Police Station Atalband Bharatpur (Raj) (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Sewar)

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner	: Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain,Adv.
For Respondent	: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

12/03/2025

¶13

This criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been preferred by the accusedpetitioner challenging the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.40/2022 whereby learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused-petitioner, has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.140/2020. In Criminal Case No.140/2020 arising out of the FIR No.57/2020 registered at Police Station Atalband, District Bharatpur for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:11546]

[CRLR-413/2025]

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1950’), learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of Act of 1950 for one year’s simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the petitioner is above 67 years of age. The accused-petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950 and has been sentenced for one year’s simple imprisonment with the fine of Rs.20,000/- and the accused-petitioner has served the sentence for more than two and half months, therefore, learned counsel prays that looking to the old age of the accusedpetitioner, a liberal view be taken.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner makes a limited submission that at this stage, the accused-petitioner does not want to challenge the order of conviction against him, however the present petition may be disposed of and the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner dated 11.03.2025. The custody certificate dated 11.03.2025 is taken on record.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:11546]

[CRLR-413/2025]

In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal

¶26

Appeal No.612/2019) decided on 19.04.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts and circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:-

¶27

“43…… We are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said-”The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.”

¶28

(Emphasis supplied)

¶29

Admittedly, age of the accused-petitioner is above 67 years and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950 for recovery of 60 quarters of liquor from him. As per the custody certificate dated 11.03.2025, the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment, out of which he has already undergone the sentence of two months and twenty two days.

¶30

Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and considering the fact that the recovery made from the accused-petitioner is of only 60 quarters of liquor and also considering that the petitioner has undergone the sentence of two months and twenty two days, therefore, the present revision

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:11546]

[CRLR-413/2025]

petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Act of 1950, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the petitioner, who is in custody, is ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.

¶35

Stay application and any other pending applications, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶36

A copy of this order shall be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.

¶37

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶38

AARZOO ARORA /51

Kishansingh Urf Krashna S/O Phoolsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishansingh Urf Krashna S/O Phoolsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Ratibhan Jangid Vs Preeti Sharma @ Renu W/O Sushil Kumar Jangid D/O Mahendra Kumar Jangid

Neeraj Singh Son of Shri Ran Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pushplalgurjar S/O Gangaramgurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/O Shri Aladin Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs State

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Simkori and Ors.