HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.282 of 2013 Sameer Singh ….. Revisionist Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence:

Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the revisionist/accused.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by ACJM, Rishikesh in Crl. Case No.5 of 2010 (State v. Sameer Singh) whereby the revisionist has been convicted u/s 60 of the Excise Act and sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.6,000/- with default stipulation of six months’ additional S.I. Revisionist has also challenged the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Crl. Appeal No.107 of 2012, Sameer Singh, v. State, whereby the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case are that as per prosecution story on 23.11.2007 at 16:30 hours, when informant was busy in law and order duty then the accused was nabbed holding a white plastic bag. On being searched, 40 pouches of local liquor were recovered. The accused was accordingly challaned u/s 60 of the Excise Act. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution namely PW1 Shashi Kumar Saini, PW2 Devendra Giri Goswami, Excise Inspector and PW3 Pareshwar Joshi.

Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he did not produce any evidence. The trial Court after analyzing the evidence produced before it reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against the accused- revisionist and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. The accused-revisionist feeling disgruntled preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh. Challenging both the judgments present revision has been filed.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he accepts the conviction and sentence, as there is nothing on record to challenge the judgment on merit. But, at the same time, he made a submission that since this is an offence under the Excise Act; the matter relates to 2007 i.e. 19 years have elapsed since when the first information report was lodged against the revisionist/accused and he has undergone the turmoil of the pendency of this criminal case against him and his conviction by both the Court below. He further submitted that the revisionist/accused has no criminal antecedents either before lodging of the first information report of this crime or even during the pendency of the present criminal case against him. He is a sole bread earner of his family and the offence which has been committed by him, for which he was punished, was done by him in a childish manner. Accordingly, it was prayed that the sentence awarded to him may be converted to the period already undergone by him.

5. I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the same. However, considering the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist, the Court is of the view that some leniency can be adopted into the matter.

6. Accordingly, the conviction part of the revisionist u/s 60 of the Excise Act is affirmed. However, so far as sentence part is concerned, it is modified and the revisionist is sentenced for the period of 11 days already undergone by him. So far as fine is concerned, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) from Rs.6,000/- which the revisionist will deposit before the Court concerned within two months from today failing which this judgment would be deemed to be otiose and the sentence as awarded by the trial Court would revive.

7. The revision stands partly allowed.

8. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the LCR, be sent forthwith to the learned trial court for inform