[2025:RJ-JP:37192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 704/2004 Gurumukh Singh S/o Shri Jeet Singh R/o Shekhpura Police Station Kishangarh District Alwar (Accused petitioner is lodged in District Jail, Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 27 /0 8 /2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 24/09/2025 1. The petitioner Gurumukh Singh has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 21.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar in Criminal Case No.37/2002 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act:- one year Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1,500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months’ Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Cases, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.52/2004, which was dismissed on 29.07.2004 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence awarded by the trial court to three months and Rs.1,500/- fine with default stipulation. [2025:RJ-JP:37192] (2 of 4) [CRLR-704/2004] 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this criminal revision petition are that on 07.06.2001, Excise Inspector Shri Ramchandra Joshi and other officials of Excise Department were on patrolling. At about 11.00 a.m. they saw accused on motor cycle, who was carrying a bag both sides of the motorcycle. He was checked by the Excise party then 126 pouches of illicit liquor was found in bag, which was poured in two cans, and samples were taken from canes and sent for Chemical Examination. Then Case no.6/2001 for offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, was registered against the petitioner. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner is facing trial since 2001 and has remained in custody for one month, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. [2025:RJ-JP:37192] (3 of 4) [CRLR-704/2004] 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. The appellate court has also after proper evaluation of material available on record rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes [2025:RJ-JP:37192] (4 of 4) [CRLR-704/2004] only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial since 2001, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the Appellate Court. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/4