[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitesh Alias Jiva vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9416) on 19 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9416]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 255/2026
1. Jitesh Alias Jiva S/o Veerchand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Nalwa Fala Mali P.s. Sadar, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
2. Veerchand S/o Mogji, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nalwa
Fala Mali P.s. Sadar, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
19/02/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved
of the judgment dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.25/2019, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioners and affirmed the judgment dated
02.03.2019 recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur vide Judgment in
Criminal Original Case No.400/2012, whereby the petitioners were
convicted and sentenced as under:-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 04:53:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9416] (2 of 5) [CRLR-255/2026]
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
Jitesh @ Jiva Section 19/54 3 years RI Rs.20,000/- and in
of the Rajasthan default to further
Excise Act undergo two months
SI
Veerchand Section 19/54-A 3 years RI Rs.20,000/- and in
of the Rajasthan default to further
Excise Act undergo two months
SI
3. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the prosecution
case is that on the alleged date of occurrence, the Petitioners were
apprehended and a quantity of illicit liquor was purportedly
recovered from their possession. The prosecution rests solely on
the testimonies of official witnesses forming part of the raiding
party, as no independent witness was associated during the
alleged search, seizure, sealing, or sampling.
3.1. It is alleged that the contraband was seized and samples
were forwarded for chemical examination; however, the record
indicates non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards
governing seizure, sampling, sealing, and custody. The chain of
custody is not shown to be intact, and the FSL report does not
conclusively establish a nexus between the Petitioners and the
seized substance.
3.2. Despite the alleged recovery having been effected from a
public place, no independent witness was joined, nor has any
satisfactory explanation been furnished for such omission. The
prosecution evidence is further marked by material contradictions
and inconsistencies.
3.3. The Trial Court recorded conviction, which was mechanically
affirmed by the Appellate Court without independent re-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 04:53:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9416] (3 of 5) [CRLR-255/2026]
appreciation of evidence. The Petitioners, having clean
antecedents and having remained on bail without misuse of
liberty, assert that the impugned judgments suffer from illegality
and perversity, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the material as made available to this Court.
5. After presenting arguments on the merits of the case to a
considerable extent, the learned counsel representing the
petitioners submits that the petitioners do not seek to challenge
the conviction itself. Rather, they limit their submissions to the
alternative prayer of granting them the benefit of probation. He
contends that the petitioners, aged 39 and 63 years respectively,
have no prior criminal record and that this is the first criminal case
registered against them. They are indigent individuals, and the
offense in question was an isolated incident. He further argues
that, given the circumstances, there is a reasonable prospect of
reform if the petitioners are granted an opportunity to amend their
ways. The petitioners have already endured a period of custody
during the trial and, at present, are serving their sentence. In light
of these considerations, learned counsel beseeches the Court to
take a compassionate view and grant the petitioners the benefit of
probation.
6. The learned public prosecutor, while adequately defending
the case on its merits, does not dispute the fact that the
petitioners have already spent time in custody and that this is
their first criminal offense.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 04:53:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9416] (4 of 5) [CRLR-255/2026]
7. As the revision petition challenging the conviction has been
abandoned, and upon a thorough examination of the record, the
Court finds no reason to interfere with the trial court's findings of
guilt, which were subsequently upheld by the appellate court.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction stands confirmed.
8. Turning to the issue of sentencing, it is pertinent to note the
following mitigating factors:
(1) The petitioners are aged 39 and 63 years;
(2) The offense relates to violations of Sections 19/54 and 19/54-
A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, involving the recovery of a certain
quantity of illicit liquor;
(3) The petitioners have no prior criminal history and this is their
first encounter with the law;
(4) There have been no reports of any untoward conduct or
behavior on the part of the petitioners during their period of
custody or while on bail.
9. In the unique circumstances of the case and considering the
aforementioned mitigating factors, this Court is of the considered
view that a reformative approach is warranted. Thus, in adopting a
lenient stance, the Court finds it fitting that, rather than imposing
an immediate sentence, the petitioners be released under Section
4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The
judgment of conviction dated 02.03.2019 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Criminal Original Case No.400/2012, as well as the
appellate judgment dated 31.01.2026 rendered by the learned
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 04:53:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9416] (5 of 5) [CRLR-255/2026]
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.25/2019, are hereby affirmed. However, the order of sentence
is modified in the following manner: The petitioners shall be
released forthwith on probation under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000/-
each, with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year,
along with an undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and
when called upon by the Court. In the event of breach of any term
or condition of the probation bond, or failure to maintain good
behaviour, the petitioners shall render themselves liable for
appropriate action in accordance with law. The bonds shall be
furnished before the learned trial court, i.e., the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur. The fine imposed by the trial court
is hereby set aside and need not be deposited by the petitioners.
The petitioners, who are presently in custody, shall be released
forthwith on probation, unless required in connection with any
other case, upon compliance with the aforesaid conditions.
11. The application seeking suspension of sentence and all other
pending applications are hereby disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
169-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 04:53:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
