Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ishrak Ahmed vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1239) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1239]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 7/2006
Ishrak Ahmed S/o Mohd. Yunush B/c Musalman R/o
Gandhinagar, P.S. Kotwali Chittorgarh.
(At present lodged at Sub-Jail, Chittorgarh. In the process of
transfer to Central Jail, Udaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.53/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal,
upheld the judgment dated 04.08.2005 passed in Cr. Original Case
No.620/2003 by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate,
Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby,
the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence
under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced him to
undergo one year S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.08.1996, Excise
Inspector, Circle-Chittorgarh received a secret information, upon
which he reached at the house of the present petitioner and
[2025:RJ-JD:1239] (2 of 3) [CRLR-7/2006]
recovered 12 plastic jerrican containing 552 bottles of illegal
liquor. After collecting the samples of alleged liquor and on
completion of usual procedure, the Police arrested the petitioner
and registered a case against him for offence under Section 16/54
of Rajasthan Excise Act and commenced investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act against
the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six
witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the
accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 04.08.2005 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.12.2005.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total
sentence of one year S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about more than 1.5 month of imprisonment, therefore, it
is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the
aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
[2025:RJ-JD:1239] (3 of 3) [CRLR-7/2006]
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 1.5 month in
custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section
16/54 of Excise Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced
to the period already undergone by the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
16/54 of Excise Act, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The
fine amount is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
13. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
7-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
