The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of petitioners, recognizing their status as first-time offenders with no criminal antecedents and the prolonged trial duration as mitigating factors.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dated 10.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.17/2005, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 10.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.777/2003, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 16 /54 of the RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT and sentenced to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the Excise Inspector submitted a charge-sheet in the competent court to the effect that on 23.08.1997, 225 bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners and one Premchand from Village Mataji Ki Pandoli. The liquor was seized and samples were sent for analysis to Excise Laboratory, Udaipur and after receiving a report therefrom, the offence under Section 16 /54 of the RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT was found proved against the petitioners.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioners for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. After full-fledged trial, the petitioners were convicted and sentence for the offence under Section 16 /54 of the RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT vide judgment dated 10.03.2005. The appeal preferred against the said judgment came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 10.05.2005. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1997. The petitioners were young boys aged 20-21 years at that time. They were not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against Them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner have already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26 years. They have remained in custody for some time during trial. They are living peacefully since last two and half decades, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending them to jail at this stage. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioners and they had no criminal antecedents.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1997. The petitioners were young boys aged 20-21 years at that time and were found in possession of illicit liquor. It was the first criminal case registered against them. They have n