Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:24348]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 780/2023
Mahaveer S/o Nand Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Khoda, Teh.
Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Sub
Jail, Rawatsar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
01/08/2023
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 05.07.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Camp Rawatsar) in Criminal appeal
No.82/2018, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2018
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.309/2011; whereby
the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections
19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and for each count he
has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year
alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default sentence of 1 month's
simple imprisonment.
[2023:RJ-JD:24348] (2 of 6) [CRLR-780/2023]
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 03.11.2010 at
11.00 p.m. on returning to Police Station, Mr. Sundar Lal, ASI
submitted a report to the effect that on that day at 08.00 p.m. he
alongwith other police personnel departed for patrolling and
Nakabandi. At 08.20 p.m. they started conducting Nakabandi at
Khoda Chaurha. At 08.30 p.m. they stopped an Esteem Car
bearing registration No. UP-32-AK-5811 coming from towards
Rawatsar. The driver told his name to be Mahaveer S/o Nandram.
On conducting a search of the car, 9 cartons of Haryana
manufactured country liquor was found therein and when the
driver failed to furnish any licence or permit for keeping in
possession the aforesaid liquor, the same was seized after taking
samples and the accused was arrested. On the basis of the
aforesaid report, FIR No.442/2010 was registered and after usual
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the
offences under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise
Act.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the
petitioner for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by him,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in
order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses
and exhibited 20 documents. The accused, upon being confronted
with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section
313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No
[2023:RJ-JD:24348] (3 of 6) [CRLR-780/2023]
evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned
Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon
meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court
convicted the accused for offences under Sections 19/54 and 54-A
of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 15.06.2018.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal,
which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment
dated 05.07.2023 affirming the judgment passed by the trial
court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail
conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 2010. The petitioner was aged 37 years of
age at that time. He is a poor person. He was not having any
criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered
against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct
except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already
suffered agony of protracted trial of 13 years. He remained in
custody for some time during trial and now he is in judicial
custody after passing of the judgment in appeal. With these
submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,
the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the
period already undergone.
[2023:RJ-JD:24348] (4 of 6) [CRLR-780/2023]
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was
the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had
no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained
behind the bars for some time during trial and he is presently in
judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to
the year 2010. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of
the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of
protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 13 years and
has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.
He was 37 years at the time of the incident. It was the first
criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to
be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He
remained incarcerated for some time during trial and presently, he
is in judicial custody after passing of judgment in appeal dated
05.07.2023. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the
[2023:RJ-JD:24348] (5 of 6) [CRLR-780/2023]
petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also
deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in
this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.
State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and
Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in
the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had
to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of
justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner for
each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2018
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.309/2011 as well as
the judgment in appeal dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Camp Rawatsar) in Criminal appeal No.82/2018 are affirmed but
the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for
each count, i.e. Section 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise
Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence the petitioner has
undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the
interest of justice. The petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall
be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
[2023:RJ-JD:24348] (6 of 6) [CRLR-780/2023]
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application
seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if
any, are disposed of.
10. Record be sent back to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
24-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
