1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 220/2010 Ghewar Chand Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 25th March, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Chain Singh Rathore for petitioner. Mr.Laxman Meena PP for State. ***** BY THE COURT: The petitioner herein was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer for offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The petitioner was accordingly sentenced with six years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. On failure to pay the amount of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal, however, remained unsuccessful therein as appeal was also dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there was no evidence against petitioner to connect him with the crime. The Court below committed serious error in passing the impugned order, which in fact based on 2 surmises and conjectures. The petitioner has already served jail for a more than period of one month, thus looking to the aforesaid, the impugned order of conviction and sentence may be set aside or the sentence may be reduced. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record carefully. Perusal of the impugned order shows that on proper appreciation of the evidence, the conclusion was drawn by the trial Court. The appellate Court had also taken note of the arguments advanced before it. The evidence exists against petitioner regarding offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The petitioner was having 80 liters of handmade liquor. Thus, looking to aforesaid and after considering the statements of witnesses, trial Court as well as appellate Court drawn its conclusions. I do not find any error in the finding so recorded, accordingly, order of conviction is maintained. So far as issue pertaining to sentence is concerned, it is contended that it may be reduced to the extent petitioner has already served the sentence. I have 3 considered the aforesaid argument and find that it is a case where petitioner was caught with handmade liquor. Thus, looking to aforesaid, I do not find that a case is made out to interfere even in the sentence so given to petitioner. As a result of the discussion made above, this revision petition fails and accordingly same is dismissed maintaining order of conviction as well as sentence. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. Item No.S/3 Sunil,JrPA