HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON»BLESHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. Criminal Revision No. 105/2001 Applicant : Smt. Tijori Bai alias Kamala Bai, Aged about (in^iail) 40 years, W/o Shri Budharu Mahar, R/o Santra Badi, Near Gaiytri Mandir, Durg, Thana-Mohan Nagar, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh Versus Non-applicant : State of Chhattisgarh. 1 CMMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Present:- Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant. Shri Surya Kant Mishra, PL for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passedon 08/04/2010) The applicant has been convicted under Section 34(a) of the Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo SI for one month by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg in Criminal Case No. 2861/92 passed vide judgment dated 09.02.2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction of the applicant under Section 34(a) of the Act reduced the sentence of RI for three months to one month. However, sentence of fine awarded by the learned Magistrate is maintained. The said judgment passed in Cr.Appeal No.35/2001 vide judgment dated 15.03.2001 is under challenge in this crirainal revision. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on 01.03.1985 about 11.30 a.m. the Excise Sub-Inspector P.R. Khaparde went to the house of the applicant and searched and upon search he seized 99 liters of wine in presence of witnesses. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court ofJ.M.F.C. ^NNN^ Durg, who framed charge under Section 5(1) and 34 (a) of the Act against the applicant. The charge was read over and explained to the applicant who abjured the guilt. After recording evidence, after perusal of record and affording the opportunity to the parties, the learned Magistrate convicted the applicant under Section 34(a) of the Act and sentenced him to RI for three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo SI for one month. In appeal, after perusal of record and hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the applicant as above. Against the judgment of the appellate Court, the applicant is before this Court. 3 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that fine amount awarded by the appellate Court has already been deposited by the applicant He further submitted that he would not argue this case on merit. He argued that case was pending since 01.03.1985 i.e. near about 25 years has elapsed. The applicant is a lady and she is now about 60 years of age. She remained in jail for a period of 8 days. On these premises, he urged thaf substantive sentence awarded by the appellate Court be reduced to the sentence already under gone by the applicant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant argued in support of the judgment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and impugned judgment. It is evident that 99 liters of wine was seized from the house of the applicant vide Ex.P.1, which was also supported by the evidence of P.R. Khaparde P.W.l and Gyan Singh P.W.2. On the basis of evidence of these witnesses, the learned Magistrate found the appellant guilty for illegal possession of 99 liters of wine kept in her house. 5, Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the fact that the applicant is a lady; the case is pending since 1985; the fact the applicant has already undergone the sentence for 8 days and also the fact that she is now about 60 years age, I am of the view that that ends ofjustice would be served if the substantive jail r' - sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month awarded by the learned appellate Court to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. 6. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant under Section 34(a) of the Act awarded by the Courts below is affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for one month awarded by the appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant. The applicant is on bail and she need not suffer the remaining jail sentence. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge