The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of time already spent in incarceration and the protracted trial as factors warranting the reduction of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. By this revision, the petitioner-convict is challenging the judgment dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara whereby, the learned Judge partly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the the conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh, Banswara , as under:

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on 01.07.2010, on the basis of secret information, the team of Excise Prevention team conducted checking of vehicles. One jeep coming from Bhagatpura side, was signalled to stop. The driver of the jeep stopped the vehicle but ran away leaving the jeep. However, the Constable and other motbir witnesses identified the person as Manoj @ Happy. The vehicle was searched by the team and 57 cartons containing 48 quarters of Royal Star whiskey was found. The cartons were marked as “For sale in Deev.” A seizure memo was prepared and investigation commenced.

3. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the petitioner for offence under Sections 19/54, 14/54, 19/54(A) of Rajasthan Excise Act. He denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and got exhibited various documents. After examining the accused petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. opportunity was also given to him to lead defence evidence. In defence, the accused petitioner stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he does not have the name as “Happy.”

5. After considering the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Sections 19/54, 14/54, 19/54(A) of Rajasthan Excise Act as mentioned above.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.02.2015, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, however, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner-convict was upheld.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner makes a submission that the incident relates back to year 2010 and out of the maximum sentence awarded to the petitioner i.e. six months simple imprisonment, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than two months, therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Court below be maintained by this Court.

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the entire record.

10. From the findings recorded by the trial C