Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shanker Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:31203) on 11 September, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:31203]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1197/2009
Shanker Lal S/o Raimal Gurjer R/o Suras, P.S. Mandal, District
Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1190/2009
Smt. Sushila W/o Bheru Lal B/c Bishnoi, R/o Kashipuri District
Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1198/2009
1. Suresh Chandra S/o Narayan Lal Jingar B/c Jingar, R/o
Rashmi, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh;
2. Prahlad Roy S/o Gopi Lal B/c Regar, R/o Gangrar P.S. Gangrar,
District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya}
Mr. Anil Gupta}
Mr. Abhishek Charan}
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF ORDER ::: 11/09/2023
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:41:20 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
BY THE COURT:-
1. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced in the vide
judgment dated 27.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No.258/2004
(182/2001), whereby the learned Judge convicted all the four
accused petitioners namely Suresh Chandra, Prahalad Roy,
Shanker Lal and Smt. Sushila for the offence under Sections
19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced
them to undergo two years simple imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo
three months' S.I.
2. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge,
Chittorgarh, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated
17.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.105/2009, whereby the
learned Judge while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners
under Section 19/54 and Section 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise
Act, modified the order of sentence by reducing the same from
two years to six months S.I. and in default in payment of fine to
further undergo one month's S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revisions are that on 08.01.2001
Shri Rajendra Pareek, Excise Officer was on patrolling duty. He
received a secret information that Suresh Chandra, Shanker Lal
and Prahalad were carrying illicit liquor in a jeep bearing registration
No.RJ-06C-5579 from Gandhi Nagar to Chittorgarh. Upon the said
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
information, Nakabandi near Maharana Pratap Marg was conducted and
the suspected jeep was intercepted which was driven by Shanker Lal
and two persons who were sitting on the rear seat were Suresh and
Prahalad. Upon search, 4 plastic bags containing 700 pouches of
countrymade liquour were recovered. Shanker Lal was not having
driving licence. The vehicle was registered in the name of Smt. Sushila.
The accused were arrested and First Information Report No.100/2000
was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Chittorgarh under Section
19/54 of the Excise Act against the aforesaid petitioners. After
investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners.
The learned Magistrate framed charge and the read over the same
to the accused-petitioners Suresh Chandra, Shanker Lal and
Prahalad under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and
accused Sushila for the offence under Section 19/54A of the
Rajasthan Excise Act and upon denial of guilt by them,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in
order to prove the offences, examined as many as 7 witnesses
and exhibited 13 documents. The accused, upon being confronted
with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section
313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent.
Accused Shushila was examined as D.W.1. Then, after hearing the
learned for the parties and upon meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused for offence
under Sections 19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide
judgment dated 27.06.2009. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, an appeal was preferred by all the accused. The
learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 partly
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
allowed the appeal filed the petitioners while maintaining
conviction of the accused and modified the order of sentence
awarded awarded to them by reducing the same from two years
SI to six months SI along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default
in payment of fine to further undergo one month's SI. 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 they will not
assail conviction of the petitioners and confines their arguments to
the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. They further alleged the matter pertains to the year
2001 and the petitioners were of young age at that time. They
have already suffered agony of protracted trial of about 23 years.
The maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is simple
imprisonment of two years which was modified by the learned
appellate Court to six months S.I. They remained in custody for
some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. They are not
having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case
registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over
their conduct except the impugned judgment. 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 pray that by taking a
lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the
petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time and it
was the first criminal case registered against them.
6. Since the revision petitions against conviction are not
pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which
requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial
court and modified by the appellate court, this court does not wish
to interfere in the judgment of conviction the same is maintained.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in these cases pertain
to the year 2001 and the matter relates to recovery of illicit liqour
and the revision petitions are pending before this court for last 14
years. The 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 22 years and have been in
the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. The
maximum sentence awarded by the Court below is two years'
simple imprisonment and the same was reduced by the appellate
Court to six months. On a perusal of the record, it is revealing that
the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time.
They were not previously convicted in any case and it was the first
criminal case registered against them. They are living peacefully
for last two and half decades as not report contrary to the same
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
has been received by this court. In view of the facts noted above,
the case of the petitioners deserve 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, period of incarceration, 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 one already undergone by them.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2009
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Chittorgarh in Criminal
Original Case No.258/2004 (182/2001), as well as the judgment
dated 17.11.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.105/2009 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, are affirmed but the
quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court under
Section 19/54 and 19/54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is modified
to the extent that the sentence the petitioners 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.
[2023:RJ-JD:31203] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1197/2009]
9. The revision petitions are allowed in part. Pending
applications, if any, are disposed of.
10. The record be returned to the trial court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
445-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
