1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 694 of 2012 Prakash Sahu S/o Koushal Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kuthrel, Police Station Anda, Tahsil And Distt. Durg C.G., ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through – Police Station Anda, Distt. Durg C.G., ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 04/03/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.26/2011 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Dist. Durg (C.G.), whereby the appeal filed by the applicant is dismissed while upholding the judgment dated 03.02.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.303/2010 convicting the applicant under Section 34(1)(d) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 months and to pay fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional SI for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.02.2010 at about 19:30 hours P.W.3 R.K.Verma, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Urla, on the basis of information from the informer that the applicant/accused was selling liquor illegally, at village Kuthrel, he reached to the spot and seized 61 quarter Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.05 10:29:15 +0530 2 bottles of liquor vide Ex.P.1, which was carrying by him in his motorcycle, in presence of P.W.1 Gajendra Chandrakar and P.W.2 Ramesh Chandrakar. Thereafter, P.W.3 R.K.Verma went to the Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P.3 under Crime No.19/2010. Seized article was sent for chemical examination and it was opined to be country made liquor by P.W. 4 C.S. Churendra, Excise Sub-Inspector and his report is Ex.P.5. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 34 (A) was filed before the Court of JMFC, Durg. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. So as to prove the guilt of the accused/applicant, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses. Statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned trial Court as well as appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant, as mentioned in opening paragraph. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not challenge the conviction part of the accused under Section 34(1)(d) of the Excise Act but challenging the sentence part, which is on higher side. He further submits that the applicant was in jail from 03.10.2012 till 03.11.2012 and thus he remained in jail for a period of one month and one day and the minimum punishment prescribed on the date of accident was one month, therefore, the minimum sentence imposed upon the applicant has already been completed by him. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents and he is the facing lis since February, 2011, i.e., for almost 15 years and at that time he was young boy of 18 years. Lastly, he submits that fine amount imposed upon the applicant has already been deposited. On these premises, he urged that the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the revision, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. He 3 further submits that the applicant/accused has been released on bail and as per information received by him from the jail authorities, he was in jail from 03.10.2012 to 03.11.2012 and at that time, the minimum punishment prescribed was for one month. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 8. Considering the statement of P.W.3 R.K.Verma supported by P.W.1 Gajendra Chandrakar and P.W.2 Ramesh Chandrakar and P.W.4 C.S. Churendra, Excise Sub-Inspector, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused, which needs no interference. 9. As regards sentence part of the applicant, considering the fact that the applicant remained in jail for a period of one month and one day and he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since February, 2011, i.e., for almost 15 years have elapsed and that he was young boy of 18 years old at that time, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. However, the fine amount with default sentence imposed by the Court of JMFC as well as that of Appellate Court for the aforesaid offence shall remain intact. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part. The applicant is reported to be on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Records of both the Courts be sent back to the concerned Courts along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani