Rajasthan High Court
Balvendir Singh @ Moda vs State on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 790/2004
Balvendir Singh @ Moda S/o Sh. Bishan Singh by caste Sikh, R/o
Titoda Scheme No.2, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manu Bhargava
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ramesh Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
DATE OF RESERVED: 15/12/2021
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/12/2021
BY THE COURT:
By way of filing instant revision petition, a challenge has
been made to the judgment dated 21.7.2004 passed by the
learned special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases),
Alwar in cr. Appeal no. 66/2004 whereby the learned Judge has
affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence which was
passed vide order dated 19.2.2004 passed by learned A.C.J.M.
No.1, Alwar in cr. Regular case no. 379/2000 (156/2003) whereby
learned Trial Court has convicted the accused for having in
possession of illicit 100 bottles of country made liquor. The learned
Trial court after conviction directed the petitioner to suffer
sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergone one
month's simple imprisonment for offence under Section 16/54 of
(2 of 3) [CRLR-790/2004]
the Excise Act. The learned Appellate Court while maintaining the
judgment, reduced the sentence to three month's imprisonment
and fine of Rs.500/-.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that instead of challenging the conviction, he seeks indulgence of
this court towards the part of sentence as awarded by the Trial
Court and modified by the learned Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that incident took
place in the year 2000 and he has faced the rigour of trial, and
proceedings of appeal and revision for about 21 years. The
petitioner was 27 years' old when the offence took place. He was
not found involved in any other criminal case and, therefore, at
the first instance, looking to the age, character and circumstances
of the case and the social, economical and regional circumstances
of the accused, benefit of probation should be extended in his
favour. He submits that the petitioner was taken into custody on
21.7.2004 when the judgment of appeal was pronounced and his
sentence was suspended by this court vide order dated 21.2.2005.
However, the modified sentence awarded by the learned Appellate
Court has been served by him. In this view of the matter, no
useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending for
consideration.
Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the facts as
narrated above.
(3 of 3) [CRLR-790/2004]
Heard, and gone through the record of the trial as well as
proceedings of the appeal. Since the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not press on the point of conviction and the part of
sentence has already undergone by the petitioner, therefore,
nothing survives in this matter no need to pass any further order.
The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are canceled.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
SANDEEP RAWAT /23/38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
