Shambhu Lal And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32617)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7759 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32617]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 407/2005

1. Shambhu Lal son of Ram Lal Ji, by caste Bhambhi, Resident of Mataji ki Pandoli, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh

2. Kailash Chandra son of Devi Lal Ji, by caste Khatik, resident of Khatik Mohalla, Chittorgarh

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

03/10/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 10.05.2005

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1,

Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.17/2005, whereby the learned

appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 10.03.2005 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular

Case No.777/2003, whereby the petitioners have been convicted

for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act

and sentenced to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment

alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

[2023:RJ-JD:32617] (2 of 5) [CRLR-407/2005]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the Excise

Inspector submitted a charge-sheet in the competent court to the

effect that on 23.08.1997, 225 bottles of illicit liquor were

recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and one

Premchand from Village Mataji Ki Pandoli. The liquor was seized

and samples were sent for analysis to Excise Laboratory, Udaipur

and after receiving a report therefrom, the offence under Section

16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was found proved against the

petitioners.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the

petitioners for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by them,

commenced the trial. After full-fledged trial, the petitioners were

convicted and sentence for the offence under Section 16/54 of the

Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 10.03.2005. The

appeal preferred against the said judgment came to be dismissed

vide judgment dated 10.05.2005. Hence, this revision petition is

filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not

assail conviction of the petitioners 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. The petitioners were young boys aged

20-21 years at that time. They were not having any criminal

antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against

[2023:RJ-JD:32617] (3 of 5) [CRLR-407/2005]

Them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct

except the impugned judgment. The petitioner have already

suffered agony of protracted trial of 26 years. They have remained

in custody for some time during trial. They are living peacefully

since last two and half decades, thus, no fruitful purpose would be

served by sending them to jail at this stage. With these

submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,

the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the

period already undergone.

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

defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact

that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioners

and they had no criminal antecedents.

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 case pertains to the year 1997.

The petitioners were young boys aged 20-21 years at that time

and were found in possession of illicit liquor. It was the first

criminal case registered against them. They have not been shown

to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. The

[2023:RJ-JD:32617] (4 of 5) [CRLR-407/2005]

right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable

and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The

petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial,

spanning over a period of more than 26 years and have been in

the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. They

remained incarcerated for some time during trial. They belong to

weaker section of the society and are poor persons. In view of the

facts noted above, the case of the petitioners deserves to be dealt

with leniency. The petitioners also deserve 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

petitioners, their criminal antecedents, their status in the society

and the fact that they 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 petitioners is reduced

to the period already undergone by them.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2005

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal

Regular Case No.777/2003 as well as the judgment in appeal

dated 10.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.17/2005 are

affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioners

[2023:RJ-JD:32617] (5 of 5) [CRLR-407/2005]

for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is

modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender.

Their bail bonds are discharged.

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

if any, shall stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 25-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)