[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babulal @ Radheshyam vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:3964) on 20 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:3964]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 73/2026
Babulal @ Radheshyam S/o Banshilal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Sensada Police Station Padukala, District Nagaur Rajasthan
(Presently Incarcerated In Sub Jail, Merta)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vindo Kumar Sharma
Mr. Aditya Sharma
Mr. Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/01/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by
the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.06.2018
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta
in Criminal Original Case No. 167/2012 (178/2011), whereby the
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 16/54 and
54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of
Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for each offence, as also the judgment
dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta
in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2018, whereby the appeal preferred by
the petitioner was partly allowed and the conviction under Section
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 02:51:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3964] (2 of 5) [CRLR-73/2026]
54-A of the Act was set aside, however the conviction and
sentence under Section 16/54 of the Act were maintained.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on the basis of
secret information the police allegedly intercepted a vehicle and
recovered certain quantity of country-made liquor therefrom and
after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for
the offence under Sections 16/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan
Excise Act, 1950. The learned trial court, after recording evidence
and hearing the parties, convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid
offences and sentenced him accordingly by judgment dated
22.06.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal
before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, Merta, who vide judgment dated 06.01.2026 partly allowed
the appeal by setting aside the conviction under Section 54-A of
the Act but maintained the conviction and sentence under Section
16/54 of the Act. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the
revision petition has been argued on merits also, however his
main emphasis is on the question of sentence. It is contended that
the petitioner is a first time offender, a middle-aged person
belonging to a poor family and is the sole bread earner of his
family. It is further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the
year 2011 and the petitioner has faced a long protracted trial and
appellate proceedings for about fifteen years, thereby suffering
immense mental and financial agony. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has already remained incarcerated for some period
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 02:51:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3964] (3 of 5) [CRLR-73/2026]
during trial as well as after dismissal of the appeal and is presently
in custody. Learned counsel submits that no fruitful purpose would
now be served by sending the petitioner back to jail after such a
long lapse of time, particularly when no other criminal case has
been registered against him in the intervening period. It is
therefore prayed that while maintaining the conviction, the
petitioner be granted the benefit of probation.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer,
however fairly conceded that the petitioner is a first time offender
and that no subsequent criminal case has been reported against
him.
5. Though the conviction has not been seriously pressed before
this Court, however for the satisfaction of the Court, the record
has been perused and the evidence has been examined. This
Court finds no perversity, illegality or material infirmity in the
concurrent findings recorded by the courts below so far as the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan
Excise Act, 1950 is concerned. Accordingly, the conviction of the
petitioner for the said offence is affirmed.
6. Now adverting to the question of sentence, this Court finds
considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is a first
time offender and there is no allegation of his involvement in any
other criminal case either prior or subsequent to the present
incident. The occurrence is of the year 2011 and the petitioner has
undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for more than a
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 02:51:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3964] (4 of 5) [CRLR-73/2026]
decade. He is a middle-aged person, belongs to a poor family and
is the sole source of livelihood for his dependents. He has already
remained in custody for some period and is presently undergoing
the sentence.
7. This Court further notices that the learned trial court, though
made a brief reference to the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958, declined to extend the benefit of probation to
the petitioner by observing that the case was not fit for grant of
such benefit, without recording cogent or adequate reasons and
without properly appreciating the mitigating circumstances arising
in favour of the petitioner. The learned appellate court, while
partly allowing the appeal, did not advert to or examine the
question of applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act at all
and maintained the substantive sentence without any discussion
on the issue. Thus, the discretion vested in the courts below with
regard to consideration of probation has not been exercised in
accordance with the settled principles of law.
8. The object of probation is not merely to avoid imprisonment
but to reform the offender and to prevent his relapse into
criminality by affording him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself
in society. The reformative theory of punishment emphasizes that
in appropriate cases, particularly involving first time offenders, the
courts should lean in favour of reformation rather than
incarceration. In the present case, having regard to the age of the
petitioner, his social and economic background, the long lapse of
time since the commission of the offence, the absence of any
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 02:51:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3964] (5 of 5) [CRLR-73/2026]
subsequent criminal conduct and the fact that he has already
undergone mental, physical and financial suffering, this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioner's case is eminently fit for
grant of benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
9. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950,
the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is modified and the
petitioner is directed to be released on probation under Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, to keep peace and
be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and
receive sentence when called upon during the said period.
10. Since the petitioner is presently in custody, he shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The petitioner
shall furnish the requisite probation bond and surety within one
month from the date of his release.
11. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a
copy of this order to the concerned jail authority for immediate
compliance.
12. The criminal revision petition is partly allowed in the above
terms. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
22-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 02:51:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
