O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (for short "Excise Act"). A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the offence relates to 9 cartons of foreign liquor and 6 cartons of beer. The allegation is that the recovery was made from the house of the appellant. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and imposed the maximum sentence of imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in accordance with sub- section 2 of Section 34 of the Excise Act. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the Revision Application filed by the appellant. The appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 1½ years and has paid the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand).

A perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 34 of the Excise Act shows that the minimum sentence is of imprisonment for one year and with fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). The maximum sentence is of imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees one lakhs)

A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court and, in particular, paragraph 26 shows that general observations were made while dealing with the issue of sentencing. The Trial Court observed that human life is affected by the bad effect of liquor due to which physical and mental health of the common public is affected. The Trial Court noted that the appellant is a woman. However, no reasons are recorded why the maximum sentence of three years should be imposed. This aspect has not been adverted to by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State pointed out that there are antecedents of the appellant. He has handed over a list of six antecedents and one of them is the case in hand. The remaining five cases are from the years 2004-2010. In two cases, the appellant has been acquitted.

Without recording any reasons, the Trial Court ought not to have imposed maximum sentence, especially when the accused is a woman.

Therefore, in the facts of the case, we are of the view that the sentence undergone by the appellant is sufficient for the offence proved against her.

Accordingly, we confirm the impugned orders insofar as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. However, we modify the sentence by reducing the same to the one which is already undergone. As the fine amount has been paid by the appellant, there is no question of undergoing default sentence.

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

..........................J.

(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

February 14, 2024.

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3316/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-12-2018 in CRR No. 544/2010 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)

PARWATI SAHU Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)

(IA No. 54675/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 81499/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 14-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s)

Mr. Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Adv.

Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Mr. Aniket Patel, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (AVGV RAMU)

AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file.)