Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhera Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:28508) on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28508]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 203/2008
Bhera Ram S/o Bhakra Ram, Aged about 28 Yrs., R/o Sanchore,
Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Lodged in Sub-Jail, Bhinmal)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Bhinmal, in Criminal Appeal No.46/2007
whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2007
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sanchore,
District Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.528/2002 by which the
learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Section 19/54 Rajasthan 1 year and Rs.500/- and in default of
Excise Act 6 months' SI payment of fine, 7 days' SI
2. The period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the
original imprisonment.
3. The gist of the prosecution story is that on the basis of secret
information, Circle Inspector Sh. Dhanpat Raj (Dy. S.P., Sanchore)
conducted a raid at the petitioner's house. During the raid, the
[2025:RJ-JD:28508] (2 of 4) [CRLR-203/2008]
petitioner was present and liquor bottles were recovered from his room.
As the petitioner failed to produce a valid license for the liquor, he was
arrested on the spot. Samples were taken, sealed and a case was
registered for offence punishable under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan
Excise Act. The police commenced investigation and after completion of
investigation, the police filed a challan for the aforesaid offence before
the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed charge against the
petitioner for offence punishable under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan
Excise Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the
trial. During the course of trial, as many as 9 witnesses were examined
and some documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of the
accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in
defence 4 witnesses were examined.
4. After hearing both parties, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act
vide judgment dated 13.09.2007. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Session Judge,
Bhinmal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.2008. Both
these judgments are under assail before this Court in the instant
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel Mr. R.J. Punia, representing the petitioner, at the
outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and the
judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld by
the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that the
incident took place in the year 2002. The accused-petitioner had
remained in jail for about 10 days after passing of the judgment by the
appellate Court. No other case has been reported against him. He hails
from a very poor family and belongs to the weaker section of the
[2025:RJ-JD:28508] (3 of 4) [CRLR-203/2008]
society. He has languished in jail for some time, therefore, a lenient
view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 10 days and except
the present one no other case has been registered against him.
7. 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 court below, this
court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner
remained in jail for some time. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed 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 circumstances of the case, age of the
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since a pretty long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is of one
year and six months as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship
and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to
reduce the sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has
already undergone till date.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
13.09.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class),
Sanchore, District Jalore in Criminal Regular Case No.528/2002 and the
judgment dated 26.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session
[2025:RJ-JD:28508] (4 of 4) [CRLR-203/2008]
Judge, Bhinmal in Criminal Appeal No.46/2007 are affirmed but the
quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to
the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be
sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine amount
imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited, is hereby waived.
The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
13-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
