Mohan Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:25701)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5860 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25701]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 306/2001

Mohanlal S/o Budharam, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Hemaguda, Tehsil Sanchor, District Jalore

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

14/08/2023

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by

the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2001

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in

Criminal Appeal No.30/2000, whereby the learned appellate court

while affirming the judgment dated 13.09.2000 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, in Criminal

Regular Case No.436/1997 convicting the petitioner for the

offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, reduced

the sentence for the said offence from two years' simple

imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and maintained

the fine amount of Rs.500/- and default sentence of one month's

simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Mr. Satishchandra,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, sent a report on 11.03.1997 to

[2023:RJ-JD:25701] (2 of 5) [CRLR-306/2001]

the effect that on that day, on the information of an informant, he

alongwith police party departed from Sanchore at 06.30 p.m. for

conducting Nakabandi and sent SHO Kan Singh with police

personnel to conduct Nakabandi at pahadpura. On the way, a

suspected Jeep was seen, which was followed and SHO Kan Singh

was also instructed to intercept the same from the other side.

The jeep met with an accident and the persons sitting therein tried

to flee. Kan Singh recognized the driver Mohan Lal Panwar and

other persons as Mohan Lal and Hari Ram. Boxes containing

liquor bottles were loaded in the jeep. One accused Mohan Lal

Kawa was caught while the others made their escape good. The

accused, who was caught, told that the other persons were Mohan

Lal S/o Haringa and Hari Ram. A huge quantity of liquor and beer

was found loaded in the Jeep, which was seized and after taking

samples. Upon the aforesaid report, FIR No.71/1997 was

registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet under

Section 19/54 was submitted against the accused.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him,

commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in

order to prove the offence, examined as many as 8 witnesses and

exhibited 12 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

evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned

Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon

[2023:RJ-JD:25701] (3 of 5) [CRLR-306/2001]

meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court

convicted and sentenced the accused for offence under Sections

19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated

13.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he

preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned

appellate court vide judgment dated 23.05.2001 in the manner

stated above. 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 1997. No adverse remark has been passed

over the conduct of the petitioner except the impugned judgment.

The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26

years. He has remained in custody for some time during trial and

some time 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.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits and submits that the learned appellate

court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence

awarded to the petitioner. However, he does not refute the fact

[2023:RJ-JD:25701] (4 of 5) [CRLR-306/2001]

that he has remained behind the bars for some time during trial

and 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 1997. 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 26 years and

has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

He remained incarcerated for some time during trial and after

passing of the judgment in appeal. In view of the facts noted

above, the case of the 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 status in the society and the fact that he faced

[2023:RJ-JD:25701] (5 of 5) [CRLR-306/2001]

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 is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2000

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore in

Criminal Regular Case No.436/1997 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Criminal appeal No.30/2000 are

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner

for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is

modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail

bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 99-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)