Skip to content


Pema Ram S/O Heera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)643
AppellantPema Ram S/O Heera Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
rajasthan excise act, 1950 - section 54--sentence and probation of offenders act--section 4--benefit of probation--not definite that implements recovered were used for manufacturing illicit liquor-accused young man of 21 years--no previous conviction--held, he is not disentitled to benefit of probation.;revision partly allowed. - - two thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, balotra to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour......the samples taken from the wash, it was found to be on excersiable article. his appeal before the learned sessions judge, balotra has been dismissed on 2-4-1985. hence this revision.2. the only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been dealt with under the probation of offenders act, as according to the finding of the learned sessions judge him self he was less than 21 years of age on the date of this recovery and the learned sessions judge has not given any reasons for refusing to deal with him under the probation of offenders act except saying that it was a social offence and the quantity of the wash was huge and that implements for manufacturing liquor had been recovered from his.....
Judgment:

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. The accused Pema Ram has been convicted under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on 28-11-1984 on the ground that on 23-12-1982, the Excise Officials recovered from his house a earthen pitcher Ekw.k containing fermented wash measuring about 50 litres and a furnacte ihik HkB~Bh ftl es ,d Nsn gS along with a Chatli' and on chemical analysis of the samples taken from the wash, it was found to be on excersiable article. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra has been dismissed on 2-4-1985. Hence this revision.

2. The only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, as according to the finding of the learned Sessions Judge him self he was less than 21 years of age on the date of this recovery and the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for refusing to deal with him under the Probation of Offenders Act except saying that it was a social offence and the quantity of the wash was huge and that implements for manufacturing liquor had been recovered from his possession.

3. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in refusing the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case. The learned Sessions Judge has found the accused-petitioner to be less than 21 years of age on the date of the recovery of the aforesaid articles. It is true that the quantity of the fermented wash is alleged to be about 50 litres but it is only by way of approximation and there is no definite evidence about it. So far as the question of recovery of the implements for manufacturing liquor are concerned, description of the articles given in the recovery memo is not quite clear and the articles given in the recovery memo is not quite clear and the articles do not appear to have been produced before the court so that definite opinion could be formed whether they were necessarily implements for manufacturing the liquor.

5. The accused is thus a young boy. There is no previous conviction against him and in the circumstances when there is nothing to show that he is in any way dis-entitled from the benefit of probation on account of his character or antecedent and the nature of the offence as stated above also in my opinion does not come in his way for the grant of probation.

6. I, therefore, partly accept this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, set-aside the sentence awarded to him. He is not sentenced to any punishment forthwith but shall be released on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour.

7. I further direct that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of costs of the proceedings.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //