Uttarakhand High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 649 of 2022
Prem Singh ..........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........ Respondent
Present : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated
27.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case
No. 49 of 2020, State vs. Prem
Singh, by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class Lansdowne,
Pauri Garhwal ("the case"). By it, the
revisionist has been convicted under
Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act,
1910 and sentenced to one year
simple imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default of
payment of fine, revisionist shall
further undergo simple
imprisonment for 30 days, and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated
07.10.2022, passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 33 of 2022, Prem Singh
vs. State, by which, the judgment
and order dated 27.05.2022, passed
in the case, has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the file.
3. On 12.12.2022, the instant revision was
admitted on the limited question of sentence/probation.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is in custody for a period of
about three weeks. His age is 65 years. He is an old man.
He has no criminal antecedents. It is a case of recovery of
liquor.
5. On 12.12.2022, learned State Counsel was
required to get report of the Probation Officer, so as to
assess the quantum of sentence or probability of releasing
the revisionist on probation. Today, Learned State
Counsel would submit that no such report could be
obtained.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the judgment and order, passed in the case,
itself reveals that it is the first offence of the revisionist. It
is stated that revisionist is a villager and an agriculturist.
7. The revisionist is a villager, having no
antecedents. It is his first offence. In view of this and
having considered all the attending factors, this Court is
of the view that instead of sentencing the revisionist at
once to any punishment, he may be released on entering
into a bond with two sureties to appear and receive
sentence when called upon within one year and in the
meantime to keep peace and to be of good behavior.
8. Accordingly, the revision may be partly allowed.
9. The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of
the revisionist is upheld. But instead of sentencing the
revisionist to any punishment at once, he may be released
on his entering into a bond with two sureties to appear
and receive sentence when called upon during a period of
one year and, in the meantime, keep peace and be of good
behavior.
10. The impugned judgments and orders are
modified to the extent as indicated above.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.12.2022
AK
