[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13478) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13478]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 390/2026
Dilip Kumar S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Chundavada Police Thana Bichiwada District Dungarpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
19/03/2026
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted under
Sections 438/441 of the BNSS, 2023, assailing the appellate
judgment dated 24.02.2026 rendered by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.91/2020,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2019,
passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dungarpur, in Criminal Original Case No.616/2011 was affirmed.
By the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 19/54 and 19/54-A of the Rajasthan
Excise Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two
years on each count respectively, along with 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.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:58:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13478] (2 of 5) [CRLR-390/2026]
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.08.2011, the
petitioner was arrested in connection with running a shop
carrying English Liqour without having valid licence.
3. On the basis of the report submitted by the complainant, an FIR
was registered for aforesaid offences under Sections 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
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-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:58:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13478] (3 of 5) [CRLR-390/2026]
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.
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 2011,
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
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:58:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13478] (4 of 5) [CRLR-390/2026]
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
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 03.05.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dungarpur, in
Criminal Original Case No.616/2015 (State vs. Dilip Kumar), and
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:58:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13478] (5 of 5) [CRLR-390/2026]
the appellate judgment dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.91/2020, 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.
15. It is observed that the petitioner is presently in custody;
hence, he be released forthwith. The application for suspension of
sentence application (94/2026) and all other pending applications,
if any, are deemed disposed of in accordance with this order.
(FARJAND ALI),J
259-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:58:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
