Vinod Kumar And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13894)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8727 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8727 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinod Kumar And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13894) on 12 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:13894]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 927/2006

1. Vinod Kumar S/o Ugam Lal Kumawat, R/o Lamba (Kumawaton
Ka), PS Baneda, District Bhilwara.
2. Sita Ram S/o Ladu Lal, B/c Mali, R/o Sanganer Colony,
Bhilwara.
3. Shanker Lal S/o Balu Khatik, R/o Ward No.2, Bhilwara.
                                         (Lodged at District Jail Bhilwara)
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Patodia
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

12/03/2025

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated

21.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast

Track), No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.28/2006 by which the

appellate court partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining

the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of

Rajasthan Excise Act, reduced his sentence as awarded by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (East), Bhilwara vide

judgment dated 14.07.2005 in Cr. Original Case No.137/2003

(172/1994). The details of the sentence as reduced by the

appellate court are as under :

[2025:RJ-JD:13894] (2 of 4) [CRLR-927/2006]

Section 16/54 of Excise Act: Six months SI along with a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15

days SI.

Brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1993, upon

receiving a secret information, the Excise Inspector Jamnalal

Somani along with his team reached at Panchmukhi Balani. They

stopped and searched a truck transporting illegal liquor. After

usual formalities, Police registered a case against the five persons

including the petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of

Rajasthan Excise Act and started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan.

Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accused

persons including the petitioners, who denied the charge and

claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

as eight witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons

including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

In defence, no evidence was produced.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 14.07.2005 convicted and sentenced

the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 16/54 of

Rajasthan Excise Act.

Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners

preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which

came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 21.09.2006 and

while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for offence

under Section 16/54 of Excise Act, the appellate court reduced

their sentence as aforementioned. Hence this revision petition.

[2025:RJ-JD:13894] (3 of 4) [CRLR-927/2006]

At the threshold, counsel for the petitioners does not

challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the

occurrence relates back to year 1993 and the petitioners have

remained in custody for some time, out of total sentence of six

months S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the

substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioners for the

offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act may be

reduced to the period already undergone by them.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-

petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any

occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused

petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the

said case.

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.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the

year 1993 and the accused-petitioners have remained in custody

for some time, out of total sentence of six months S.I., and so

also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.

Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the

accused-petitioners have remained behind the bars for

considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence

awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 16/54 of

Rajasthan Excise Act and modified by the appellate court is

reduced to the period already undergone by them.

[2025:RJ-JD:13894] (4 of 4) [CRLR-927/2006]

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.

While maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under

Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, the sentence awarded to

them for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone. The amount of fine is waived. The petitioners are on

bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled.