JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.05.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal in Criminal Appeal No.30/2000, whereby the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment dated 13.09.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanchore, in Criminal Regular Case No.436/1997 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 19 /54 of the RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT , reduced the sentence for the said offence from two years' simple imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and maintained the fine amount of Rs.500/- and default sentence of one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Mr. Satishchandra, Deputy Superintendent of Police, sent a report on 11.03.1997 to the effect that on that day, on the information of an informant, he along with police party departed from Sanchore at 06.30 p.m. for conducting Nakabandi and sent SHO Kan Singh with police personnel to conduct Nakabandi at pahadpura. On the way, a suspected Jeep was seen, which was followed and SHO Kan Singh was also instructed to intercept the same from the other side. The jeep met with an accident and the persons sitting therein tried to flee. Kan Singh recognised the driver Mohan Lal Panwar and other persons as Mohan Lal and Hari Ram. Boxes containing liquor bottles were loaded in the jeep. One accused Mohan Lal Kawa was caught while the others made their escape good. The accused, who was caught, told that the other persons were Mohan Lal S/o Haringa and Hari Ram. A huge quantity of liquor and beer was found loaded in the Jeep, which was seized and after taking samples. Upon the aforesaid report, FIR No.71/1997 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 19 /54 was submitted against the accused.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above offence and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for offence under Sections 19 /54 of the RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT vide judgment dated 13.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 23.05.2001 in the manner stated above. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner 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. No adverse remark has been passed over the conduct of the petitioner except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26 years. He has remained in custody for some time during trial and some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the