Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anop Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:5986) on 30 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5986]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1424/2024
Anop Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Kotadi, Police Station Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shanker Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
30/01/2025
The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 R/w
Section 401 Cr.P.C. (Section 438 R/w 442 BNSS) has been filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal
No.118/2019, by which the appellate court set aside the order
dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Garhi, District Banswara in Regular Criminal Case No.296/2009
and remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh
order of sentence after hearing both the parties and taking into
consideration the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court
vide order dated 30.07.2019 convicted and sentenced the present
petitioner for offence under Section 54-A of Rajasthan Excise Act
for a period of 1 year simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 10:09:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5986] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1424/2024]
sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Counsel
submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal against his
conviction before the appellate court, but the learned appellate
court without considering the findings of the trial court and
without there being any prayer either from the petitioner side or
from the State, has erroneously remanded the matter to the trial
court for passing a fresh order of sentence. Counsel submits that
order of the appellate court is per se illegal and erroneous and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned AAG has opposed the submissions made by the
counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments passed by the courts below as well as the provisions of
the Rajasthan Excise Act.
Section 54 of Rajasthan Excise Act is being reproduced
herein below:-
"54. Penalty for unlawful import, export,
transport, manufacture, possession etc. -
Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any
rule or order made or of any licence, permit or
pass granted, thereunder -
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures,
collects, sells or possesses any excisable article;
or
.....
Provided that if the quantity of liquor found at the
time or in the course of detection of the offence
under clause (a) of this section exceeds fifty bulk
liters, the person guilty for such offence shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years but which may
extend to five years and with fine of twenty
thousand rupees or ten times of the loss of excise
duty, whichever is higher."
According to the proviso of Section 54 (a) of Rajasthan
Excise Act, the minimum sentence is three years if the alleged
[2025:RJ-JD:5986] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1424/2024]
offence is found to be proved against an accused, which can be
extended upto maximum five years.
On perusal of the order of the trial court, it appears that the
learned trial court while passing the sentence of one year against
the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, did not go through the
provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, according to which, the
minimum sentence is three years. The trial court has awarded
lesser sentence. Thus, the learned appellate court rightly
remanded the matter to the trial court for passing fresh order of
sentence after taking into consideration the provisions of
Rajasthan Excise Act.
Thus, the petitioner has failed to show any error in the
impugned appellate order. The impugned appellate order is just
and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
7-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
