[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhoga Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5622) on 29 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5622]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 318/2025
Chhoga Ram S/o Bhura Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Bhakrasani, P.s. Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur (Lodged In Central
Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/01/2026
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted under
Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, assailing the appellate judgment dated 08.10.2024
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.04, Jodhpur
Metropolitan, in Criminal Appeal No.546/2023, whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2023, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.03, Jodhpur
Metropolitan, in Regular Criminal Case No.2085/2015 (State vs.
Chhoga Ram & Anr.), was affirmed. By the said judgment, the
petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections
19/54 read with Section 66 and 14/57 read with Section 66 of the
Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of two years and one year respectively, along with
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5622] (2 of 6) [CRLR-318/2025]
fines of ₹20,000/- on each count, with default stipulations.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the courts
below, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.07.2013, the
complainant Roop Singh, while posted as a Police Officer in the
Excise Preventive Force, allegedly received secret information
regarding illegal possession of liquor and, acting thereupon,
reached the agricultural field of one Chhoga Ram. It is alleged that
during the said operation, a person riding a motorcycle and
carrying a plastic bag attempted to flee upon noticing the police
personnel but was apprehended. Upon search, illicit liquor was
allegedly recovered from him.
3. On the basis of the report submitted by the complainant, an FIR
was registered for offences under Sections 14/57 and 19/54 read
with Section 66 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, and investigation was
undertaken in accordance with law. Upon completion of
investigation, the petitioner was put to trial and, after due
appreciation of evidence, was convicted and sentenced as
aforesaid by the learned Trial Court. The appeal preferred
thereagainst came to be dismissed by the learned Appellate Court,
giving rise to the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned
judgments contending that the findings of guilt suffer from serious
infirmities in law and fact. It was argued that the prosecution
failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5622] (3 of 6) [CRLR-318/2025]
conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence without an
unbroken chain; that there was absence of independent
corroboration; and that the alleged recovery was doubtful. It was,
therefore, prayed that the petitioner be acquitted of all charges.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned
judgments, submitting that both courts below have meticulously
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and returned
concurrent findings of guilt. It was contended that minor
discrepancies do not erode the core of the prosecution case and
that the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-
appreciation of evidence. Dismissal of the revision was accordingly
prayed for.
6. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and has minutely examined the record, keeping in
view the circumscribed yet corrective scope of revisional
jurisdiction.
7. At the threshold, it may be noted that revisional jurisdiction is
not intended to function as a second appellate forum. Interference
is warranted only where the findings recorded by the courts below
are demonstrably perverse, suffer from patent illegality, or
occasion grave miscarriage of justice. Upon a careful evaluation of
the material on record, this Court does not find any such infirmity
in the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner. The
conviction is supported by evidence duly appreciated by both
courts below and does not call for interference. The findings of
guilt are, therefore, affirmed.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5622] (4 of 6) [CRLR-318/2025]
8. However, the question of sentence stands on a different footing.
Sentencing is an integral component of criminal adjudication,
requiring the Court to strike a judicious balance between societal
interest and the prospects of reform of the offender. Punishment
must be proportionate, reasoned, and informed by the individual
circumstances of the case.
9. In the present matter, the incident pertains to the year 2013,
and the petitioner has faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for
more than a decade. There is no material on record to suggest
that the petitioner has any prior criminal antecedents or that he is
a habitual offender. The offence, though statutory, does not
involve violence or grave moral depravity, nor does it pose a
serious threat to public order.
10. Significantly, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court
failed to consider the applicability of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, despite the petitioner being eligible for such
consideration. The discretion vested under Section 4 of the said
Act is a substantive judicial discretion aimed at promoting
reformative justice and cannot be disregarded where the
circumstances so warrant. The omission to even advert to
probation reflects an incomplete exercise of sentencing discretion.
11. Modern penology recognises reformation as a central objective
of punishment. Where the statute permits and the offender
exhibits potential for rehabilitation, courts are expected to prefer
reformative measures over prolonged incarceration. In the
considered view of this Court, directing further custodial sentence
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5622] (5 of 6) [CRLR-318/2025]
at this stage would neither advance the cause of justice nor serve
any meaningful penological purpose.
12. In view of the totality of circumstances, this Court is
persuaded to hold that while the conviction of the petitioner
remains unimpeachable, the sentence imposed warrants
modification by extending the benefit of probation.
13. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
The judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.03, Jodhpur
Metropolitan, in Regular Criminal Case No.2085/2015 (State vs.
Chhoga Ram & Anr.), and the appellate judgment dated
08.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.04, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Appeal No.546/2023, are
affirmed insofar as they relate to the finding of guilt of the
petitioner.
14. However, in light of the circumstances and the principles of
justice, the order of sentence is modified.. The petitioner shall be
extended the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958. In this regard, the petitioner is directed to
furnish an undertaking to maintain peace and exhibit good
behaviour for a period of six months from the date of execution of
the probation bond. Furthermore, the fine amounts imposed by
the Trial Court shall remain undisturbed and must be deposited
within ninety (90) days from the date of this order, unless already
complied with.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5622] (6 of 6) [CRLR-318/2025]
15. It is observed that the petitioner is not presently in custody;
hence, there is no requirement for his surrender at this stage. All
other pending applications, if any, are deemed disposed of in
accordance with this order.
(FARJAND ALI),J
90-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:56:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
