[2026:RJ-JD:3411]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 66/2026 Pushkar Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 56 Years, Ward No 13 Sanjay Chowk Bhadra District Hanumangarh (Lodged At Central Jail Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr Manjeet Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr NS Chandawat, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/01/2026

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. (438/442 of the BNSS) assailing the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, the appellate judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01/2019, and the subsequent order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, whereby the prayer of the accused-petitioner for acceptance of bond/surety and deposit of prosecution expenses, in terms of the appellate judgment, came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 14 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Vide judgment dated 06.12.2018, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo three years’ simple imprisonment along with fine. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court, vide judgment dated 31.01.2025, while maintaining the conviction, set aside the substantive sentence and extended the benefit of probation to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bond and surety for maintaining peace and good conduct for a period of three years and deposit of prosecution expenses within the stipulated time.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner could not comply with the aforesaid conditions within the time granted by the appellate court. On account of such non-compliance, his prayer for acceptance of bond/surety and deposit of prosecution expenses was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, vide order dated 06.12.2025, and the petitioner was taken into custody, where he continues to remain.

4. There is a delay of 258 days in filing the present revision petition. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed explaining the delay. The explanation discloses that the petitioner was suffering from alcohol addiction, remained admitted in a de-addiction/rehabilitation centre for a considerable period, and thereafter was arrested and remained in custody. The record also indicates that time was consumed in obtaining certified copies and in taking appropriate legal advice. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. In criminal proceedings, where the question of personal liberty is involved, a pragmatic and liberal approach is required. No specific prejudice has been demonstrated by the respondent-State. In the interest of justice, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State on merits.

6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced and has examined the material available on record. It is evident that the appellate court, while maintaining the conviction, consciously adopted a reformative approach and found the petitioner entitled to the benefit of probation. The sentence of imprisonment was set aside and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to reform himself by maintaining peace and good conduct and by complying with the conditions imposed.

7. The impugned order dated 06.12.2025 has denied the petitioner the benefit flowing from the appellate judgment solely on account of non-compliance within the stipulated time. The record, however, indicates that such non-compliance was not wilful or deliberate. The circumstances placed on record show that the petitioner was undergoing treatment and thereaf