1
S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.272/1994
Khet Singh
Vs.
State of Rajasthan
Date of Order :: 15.09.2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for State.
BY THE COURT:
The instant criminal revision petition under Section
397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the
judgment and order dated 8.7.1994 passed by Sessions Judge,
Jalore (for short “the appellate court”) whereby the appeal filed
by the petitioner was partly allowed and while maintaining the
conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 16/54 of
the Rajasthan Excise Act, he was sentenced to undergo 6
months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-; in
default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple
imprisonment.
On a report lodged by the Excise Inspector on
21.4.1985, the police investigated the matter and ultimately
filed the challan against the petitioner for the offence under
Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. It is alleged that the
2
S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994
petitioner was found with the possession of more than one
bottle of wash along with material for preparing the illicit liquor.
By judgment and order dated 12.4.1990, the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jalore (for short, “the trial court”
hereinafter) convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner.
On an appeal, the appellate court passed the judgment and
order impugned as noticed above. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned
Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the orders passed by
both the courts below.
It is contended by leraned counsel for the
petitioner that witnesses PW-1 Lakma and PW-2 Sawiya are the
motbir witnesses of the occurrence. They did not support the
prosecution case and turned hostile. According to learned
counsel for the petitioner, there is no independent witnesses to
the alleged recovery. PW-3 Hari Singh is government employee
being a Patwari of the area, who stated in his statement that
the place from where the alleged wash said to have been
recovered, was in the joint possession of the petitioner and his
brother and therefore, according to learned counsel for the
petitioner, there is no evidence worthwhile that it was the place
exclusively possessed by the petitioner from where the bottle of
wash and material for preparing illicit liquor have been
recovered. In alternative, it was contended that the petitioner
has already suffered the imprisonment of about one month out
of six months’ imprisonment awarded to him. The occurrence is
of year 1985 and at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was
3
S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994
65-66 years of age and by now, 25 years have since elapsed,
therefore, substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to
the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
On close scrutiny of the judgments and orders
impugned as also the statements of the prosecution witnesses,
in my view, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by two
courts below and therefore, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts
below convicting the petitioner. So far as the quantum of
sentence is concerned, since it was stated that at the time of
occurrence, the petitioner was 65-66 years of age and 25 years
have since elapsed from the date of occurrence and the
petitioner has already suffered imprisonment of about one
month out of the six months’ imprisonment, therefore, in my
view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the
period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
Consequently, the revision petition filed by the
petitioner is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction
of the petitioner for the offence under Section 16/54 of the
Rajasthan Excise Act and the amount of fine, the substantive
sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced
to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on
bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
NK