Court emphasizes the need for leniency in sentencing after a prolonged trial, balancing justice and the rights of the accused.

Order

09/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, in Criminal appeal No.42/2006, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar, in Criminal Case No.58/2000 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo two years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ S.I.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 08.04.1999 Excise Inspector, Circle Suratgarh reached at the shop of accused petitioner and asked about valid the license. The shop was searched and recovered 100 bottles of countrymade liquor and

100 pouches in a box. On this report, Police registered a case.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined three witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act vide judgment dated 20.06.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

12.11.2008. 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 1999. The petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of twenty four days out of total sentence of two years’ S.I. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. It was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

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 1999 and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 7 years to culminate and it took further 2 years in decisi