Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhakher Singh vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:23449) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 233/2006
Bhakher Singh S/o Sh. Heer Singh, Resident of Beenjawal, Post
Rohidi, Tehsil - Shiv, District - Barmer.
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India through
Superintendent (Prosecution), Central Excise and
Customs Range, Jodhpur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, for U.O.I.
Mr. Deepak Vaishnav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the
judgment dated 08.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur, in Criminal appeal No.
52/2003, whereby the learned appellate court had partly allowed
the appeal filed by the petitioner and modified the judgment dated
20.07.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Economic
Offences), Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No.68/1998 maintaining the
conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 135(1)
(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentencing him to undergo 1
year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further to undergo 15 days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:23449] (2 of 5) [CRLR-233/2006]
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that in the night of
20.02.1992, when the police patrolling team was on nakabandi at
Dagra Road towards Beenjawal to verify the source provided
information. At about 04:00 A.M., one jeep was stopped which
was registered as RJ-19-C-0915 being driven by the present
petitioner accompanied by co-accused. Upon searching the jeep,
104 ignots of silver were recovered in two plastic bags. Upon
asking about permit and bill, nothing was produced by any of
them, hence the said silver was seized and handed over to the
Customs Department. Department prepared panchnama under
Sec.110 of the Customs Act and both were examined under
Sec.108 of the Customs Act. After due enquiry, it was found that
the said silver was imported illegaly into India. Hence after
obtaining sanction from higher authorities, complaint was
registered for the offence under sec.135(1)(i) of the Customs Act,
1962.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the offences under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962
and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence,
examined eleven witnesses and exhibited various documents. The
accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations,
in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations
and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for the offences under Section 135(1)(i)
[2025:RJ-JD:23449] (3 of 5) [CRLR-233/2006]
of the Customs Act, 1962 vide judgment dated 20.07.2001.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal,
which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide
judgment dated 08.03.2006. Hence, this revision petition is filed
before this court.
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail
conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 1992. The petitioner was about 46 years of
age at that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and
it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse
remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned
judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted
trial of 33 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a
period of more than one month out of total sentence of 1 year's
SI. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a
lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be
reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned counsel for the U.O.I. has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact
that the petitioner is an old aged person. It was the first criminal
case registered against him as well as the fact that he has
remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the
judgment in appeal.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
[2025:RJ-JD:23449] (4 of 5) [CRLR-233/2006]
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1992
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
46 years at that time and at present he is around 79 years of age.
The trial took 8 years to culminate and it took further 3 years in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before
this court for last 19 years. The right to speedy and expeditious
trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed
under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the
agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 33
years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged
period. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He
has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case
except this one. He remained incarcerated for a period of more
than one month out of total sentence of one year's S.I. In view of
the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be
dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the
consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by
the judicial pronouncements made 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 facts and circumstances of the case, age of
petitioner, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and
[2025:RJ-JD:23449] (5 of 5) [CRLR-233/2006]
the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through
mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would
be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2001
passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Economic Offences),
Jodhpur in Cr. Case No.68/1998 (21/1994) as well as the
judgment in appeal dated 08.03.2006 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal
No.52/2003 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to
the petitioner for the offence under 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act,
1962, 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 imposed by the trial court is
maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine before
the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall
undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any,
already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner
is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,
if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. Record, if received, be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
15-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
