[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Thavra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10247) on 25 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:10247]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 303/2026
Thavra S/o Shri Dhanji, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Dedli, Police
Station Bicchiwada, District Dungarpur. (Presently Lodged In
District Jail Dungarpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagwana Ram
Ms. Vishakha Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
25/02/2026
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition
challenge has been made to the judgment dated 19.02.2026
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal
appeal No.16/2022, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
15.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.742/2017; whereby the
petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections
19/54 and 14/57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and for each count
he has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of 3 years'
alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default sentence of three
months' simple imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that 15.06.2016,
Excise Inspector Mr. Saiyad Basarat Ali alongwith other officials
were patrolling at Sagwara-Dungarpur, during which, they
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 01:08:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10247] (2 of 4) [CRLR-303/2026]
received an information that the present petitioner was selling
liquor without any valid license or permit. Upon which, they went
to house of the petitioner and upon search being conducted, huge
quantity of country made liquor was found. When the accused
failed to furnish any explanation or licence, the aforesaid liquor
was seized and an FIR No.12/2016 for the offence under Sections
19/54 and 14/57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was registered at the
Excise Police Station Dungarpur. The accused-petitioner was
arrested and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be
submitted against him under Sections 19/54 and 14/57 of the
Rajasthan Excise Act.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 19/54 and 14/57 of the
Rajasthan Excise Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused,
commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 8
witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited.
Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-petitioner
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then, after hearing the learned
counsel for the accused petitioner and meticulous appreciation of
the evidence, learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for
offences under Sections 14, 19/54 and 57 of the Rajasthan Excise
Act vide judgment dated 15.03.2022. Aggrieved by the judgment
of conviction, he preferred an appeal before the Sessions court,
which vide judgment dated 19.02.2026 affirmed the judgment
passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed
before this court.
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 01:08:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10247] (3 of 4) [CRLR-303/2026]
4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for
the petitioner do not wish to press the present revision petition in
respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
court and preferred to make submission on the point of sentence
only. He submits that the petitioner is a poor person. He does not
have any criminal antecedents. It was his first case. No adverse
remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned
judgment. He is facing trial since the year 2016 and he has
languished in jail some time during trial and now he is in judicial
custody since the date of judgment passed by the appellate court,
i.e. from 19.02.2026, therefore, the sentence may be reduced to
the period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that
it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and
he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has
remained behind the bars for some time.
6. 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 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 true that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for
some time during trial and thereafter from the date of judgment in
appeal. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 01:08:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10247] (4 of 4) [CRLR-303/2026]
criminal case except this one. 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 considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal
antecedents, his status in the society and 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 appellant has already undergone till date.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2022
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case No.742/2017 as well as the
judgment of appeal dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal appeal No.16/2022 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 petitioner is in judicial custody. He shall
be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part.
10. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, are
disposed of.
11. Record, if received, be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
15-Rashi/-
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 01:08:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
