Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ranvir Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36333) on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36333]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1043/2008
Ranvir Singh S/o Shri Ramjas, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Mitthanpura, P.S. Elnabad, District Sirsa (Haryana).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/08/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
12.07.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is alive.
The same be taken on record.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 11.09.2008 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate
court’) in Criminal Appeal No.178/2006, whereby the said appeal
was allowed and judgment dated 04.08.2006 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh (hereinafter
to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.7/2006 was
set aside.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:45:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36333] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1043/2008]
2.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 11.09.2008 passed by the learned appellate court
as below :-
Conviction for the Sentence Fine In default of
offences under Awarded Amount payment of fine
Sections further undergo
19/54 of Rajasthan 1 Year’s Simple ₹2000/- 2 Months’ Simple
Excise Act Imprisonment Imprisonment
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
01.04.2005 at 10:40 AM, Team of Excise Department,
Hanumangarh, acting on a secret information, conducted a search
of house of the accused petitioner and recovered 480 bottles of
country made liquor, each containing 375 ml. liquor.
3.1. On the said recovery, the FIR No.1/2005 was registered at
Police Station Excise Circle, District Hanumangarh against the
petitioner and investigation was commenced.
3.2. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon completion of the
trial, the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section
19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act by the learned trial court vide
judgment dated 04.08.2006, which was set aside by the learned
appellate court vide judgment dated 11.09.2008 and convicted
and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54
of Rajasthan Excise Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.354/2008.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:45:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36333] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1043/2008]
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of
a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any
interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the
present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 2005 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
7.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :-
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
“84. … … … There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the
crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances.”
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:45:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36333] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1043/2008]
Haripada Das (supra) :
“4. … … … considering the fact that the respondent had
already undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both
financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the
fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-
1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts
of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone…”
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.22
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 10:45:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)