1 S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.272/1994 Khet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order : : 15.09.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Rajesh Bhati, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Singaria, Public Prosecutor for State. BY THE COURT: The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.7.1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Jalore (for short “the appellate court”) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, he was sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. On a report lodged by the Excise Inspector on 21.4.1985, the police investigated the matter and ultimately filed the challan against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. It is alleged that the 2 S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994 petitioner was found with the possession of more than one bottle of wash along with material for preparing the illicit liquor. By judgment and order dated 12.4.1990, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalore (for short, “the trial court” hereinafter) convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner. On an appeal, the appellate court passed the judgment and order impugned as noticed above. Hence, this revision petition. I have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor. Carefully gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. It is contended by leraned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses PW-1 Lakma and PW-2 Sawiya are the motbir witnesses of the occurrence. They did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no independent witnesses to the alleged recovery. PW-3 Hari Singh is government employee being a Patwari of the area, who stated in his statement that the place from where the alleged wash said to have been recovered, was in the joint possession of the petitioner and his brother and therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence worthwhile that it was the place exclusively possessed by the petitioner from where the bottle of wash and material for preparing illicit liquor have been recovered. In alternative, it was contended that the petitioner has already suffered the imprisonment of about one month out of six months' imprisonment awarded to him. The occurrence is of year 1985 and at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was 3 S.B.Cr.Revsion Petition No.272/1994 65-66 years of age and by now, 25 years have since elapsed, therefore, substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. On close scrutiny of the judgments and orders impugned as also the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in my view, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by two courts below and therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by courts below convicting the petitioner. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, since it was stated that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was 65-66 years of age and 25 years have since elapsed from the date of occurrence and the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment of about one month out of the six months' imprisonment, therefore, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and the amount of fine, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK