1 S. B. Criminal Revision No.394/94 Laxman v. The state of Rajasthan. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT LAXMAN. V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. S. B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.394/94, against the judgment dated 22.11.94, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.8/92, affirming the judgment dated 24.4.92 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in criminal regular case No.290/92. DATE OF JUDGMENT JULY 23, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. P.N.Mohnani, for Petitioner (s). Mr. K.K. Rawal, PP, for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision challenges petitioner's conviction for the offence of Section 16, Rajasthan Excise Act, recorded by judgment dated 24.4.92 in criminal regular case No.290/92 before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in appeal No.8/92 decided on 22.11.94. 2 S. B. Criminal Revision No.394/94 Laxman v. The state of Rajasthan. Brief alleged and relevant facts, according to prosecution, are that on 25.2.92, in evening, Inspector, Excise on patrol at named village, found a person transporting on cycle a jute bag who (Laxman s/o. Jankiya) looking Inspector, became restless, so searched and jute bag found was rubber tube containing 20 bottles of liquor which seized and sealed, preparing memo and accused arrested. Appears that appellant charged for the offence, claimed trial, but subsequently on 24.4.92, after evidence of Inspector, PW 1 submitted application accepting guilt who examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated statement recorded PW 1 and memos to be true, so proceeding learned magistrate convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine upheld in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, raising argument only for sentence urged that incident is of the year, 1992 – remained in custody for more than a month, faced agony of trial and then first appeal and by this time, in very advance stage, so appropriate and just is to reduce the sentence to already undergone. Learned Public Prosecutor states that as mentioned in orders of the courts below, revisionist had some prior conviction and sentence. Considering arguments, gone through the record. It appears that the petitioner was arrested on 25.2.92 and released in April last week – then after also remained in custody for about 30 days in 3 S. B. Criminal Revision No.394/94 Laxman v. The state of Rajasthan. November-December, 94, as such, and as incident is of the year, 1992. Therefore, taking all circumstances cumulatively, just and appropriate is to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Accordingly, accepting revision partly, sentence awarded for the offence of Excise Act as above, is reduced to that already undergone. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd 4 S. B. Criminal Revision No.394/94 Laxman v. The state of Rajasthan.