Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagirath vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:20387) on 23 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20387]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 757/2004
Bhagirath S/o Shri Durgaram, R/o Nardi, presently residing at
Ektnagar, Police Station Dangiawas, District - Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
23/04/2025
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the
judgment dated 08.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal
No.70/2004, whereby the judgment dated 11.02.2004, passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Jodhpur was upheld and the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced as below:-
Offence Sentences Fine
19/54 of the 6 months' S.I. Rs.250/- and in default
Rajasthan payment of fine to
Excise Act further undergo 15
days' S.I.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended vide order
[2025:RJ-JD:20387] (2 of 4) [CRLR-757/2004]
dated 19.10.2004, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
(Suspension of Sentence) Application No.192/2004.
3. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner was found in
possession with illegal liquor in 250 pouches in two Kattas (125 in
each Katta) at his house without having valid license for keeping
the same.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not argue the case
on the aspect of conviction of the petitioner-accused for the
offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, on
merits and limits his arguments on the point of sentence awarded
to the petitioner and made a prayer for reducing the sentence
awarded to the petitioner.
6. He submitted that the petitioner is poor person and belongs
to lower strata of the society. The petitioner is the only bread
earner of his family and he has to support his family.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial. He further
submitted that the matter the matter relates to the year 2000 and
24 years have elapsed since then. The conviction order is of year
2004 and it was affirmed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur vide order dated 08.10.2004. The
period of sentence i.e. 6 months will affect his livelihood so also
his family members.
8. Therefore, he prayed that looking to these facts, considering
the less quantity of liquor recovered in the matter and looking to
[2025:RJ-JD:20387] (3 of 4) [CRLR-757/2004]
the age of the petitioner, sentence awarded to the petitioner may
kindly be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
offence of transporting/having in possession with illegal liquor is
increasing day by day. It is against the society. Therefore, no
leniency in the sentence of the petitioner may be given to the
petitioner. Learned trial Court has rightly awarded the sentence of
six month in this case which is appropriate in this case.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2004.
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648
and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing
an accused on proof of crime. The courts have
evolved certain principles: twin objective of the
sentencing policy is deterrence and correction.
What sentence would meet the ends of justice
depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case and the court must keep in mind the gravity
of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the
offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra)
"... considering the fact that the respondent had
already undergone detention for some period and
the case is pending for a pretty long time for
which he had suffered both financial hardship and
mental agony and also considering the fact that
he had been released on bail as far back as on
17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be
met in the facts of the case if the sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone..."
[2025:RJ-JD:20387] (4 of 4) [CRLR-757/2004]
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan
Excise Act, the sentence of six months awarded to the petitioner is
reduced to 15 days simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.250/-
and in default payment of fine he will further undergo 3 days'
simple imprisonment.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of.
15. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
9-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
