Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madhu Dan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:26440) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 884/2006
Madhu Dan S/o Lalu Dan @ Labudan R/o Valdara, P.S. Kalandari,
Distict Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 883/2006
1. Hansa Ram S/o Kanraji R/o Punak Kalla, District Jalore.
2. Sher Singh S/o Balwant Singh Rajput R/o Punak Kalla,
District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
28/05/2025
1. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners
challenging the judgment dated 08.09.2006 passed in Cr. Appeals
No.11/2005 & 9/2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 22.01.2005 passed in Cr. Original Case
No.285/1998 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). The learned trial
[2025:RJ-JD:26440] (2 of 4) [CRLR-884/2006]
court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Section
19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo one
year's S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.1996, SHO, Police
Station Bagra received a secret information, upon which police
personnel reached at Bagra-Ramseen Road near Beebalsar. At
about 4 AM a car was coming from Bagra and Police signaled to
stop the car but it did not stop. Thereafter Police chased the car
and stopped it at Sumergarh in which the present petitioners were
sitting. Upon conduction search, illegal country-made liquor was
recovered from the car for which petitioners had no licence or
permit. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after
usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against
the petitioners in the Court concerned.
3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence
under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act against the
petitioners who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 7
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 22.01.2005 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners 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 partly allowed vide judgment dated 08.09.2006.
[2025:RJ-JD:26440] (3 of 4) [CRLR-884/2006]
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioners.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners
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 S.I., the accused petitioners have remained
behind bars for some time, therefore, it is prayed that the
sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences
may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioners and 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.
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-petitioners.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
the petitioners have so far undergone a considerable period 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 petitioners have remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence modified by the appellate court for offence under Section
19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act is reduced to the period already
undergone by the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section
[2025:RJ-JD:26440] (4 of 4) [CRLR-884/2006]
19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, the sentence awarded to them for
the aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The fine amount if not already deposited by the
petitioners is hereby waived. The petitioners are on bail. They
need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
13. The record of the courts below, if received, be sent back
forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
22-23-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
