The court maintains conviction but reduces the sentence based on prolonged trial and hardship suffered by the petitioner.

O RDER

09/07/2025

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FAST TRACK) No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 123/2007 (32/2005), whereby the learned Judge affirmed the conviction of the petitioner and reduced the sentence awarded to the him vide order dated 03.09.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nohar, in Criminal Case No. 139/2004 for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act .

2. The learned Trial court vide order of conviction and judgement dated 03.09.2005, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioned as below:-

month R.I.

Subsequently, the learned Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 28.07.2007 was pleased to reduce the sentence awarded as below:-

3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 13.09.2001, acting upon a secret tip, a team of Police from Police Station Parakar reached the house of Mahendra. Upon searching his house, the police team recovered 1050 pouches of country-made liquor. During the course of the recovery, the present petitioner, Mahendra, fled from the spot.

4. On the said recovery, an FIR No. 368/2001 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act , and the investigation was commenced in course of which the petitioner was arrested. After filing of charge sheet and upon completion of trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 03.09.2005 pursuant to which the learned Appellate Court reduced the quantum of sentence by judgment dated 28.07.2007.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this court, vide order dated 21.08.2007 in S.B.Cr.

Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No. 203/2007.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against him since 2001. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been facing the agony of a long and protracted trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the alternate, has prayed that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences so awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2007.

9. Heard.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 2001 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.

11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.

reported in (1998)9 SCC 678, was pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)

"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The