1. The present applicant – original accused has preferred this Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.6.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanera, in Criminal Summary Case No.933 of 1987, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the applicant under Sections 143, 29 and 72 of the Bombay Prohibition Act read with Rules 3(2) and 10 of the Transport Rules and sentenced the applicant and he was ordered to undergo S.I. of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/, in default, to undergo further S.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Rule 3(2) of the Transport Rules. Learned Magistrate further convicted and sentenced the applicant to undergo S.I. for 9 months for offences punishable under Rule 10 of the Transport Rules and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/, in default, further S.I. of three months.
The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
2. The allegations levelled against the applicant are that on 16.7.1987, at about 2:00 Hrs. near Dhanera, Nr. Rajdhani Hotel, the truck No.RJC 4351 was found having 800 packets of beer without any permit and the said truck was going from Bombay to Jodhpur and the permission of the Director of Prohibition and Excise was not taken for transporting the same the State of Gujarat. Thereby, the applicant committed breach of the Transport Rules and also committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 72 and Section 29 of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
3. Against the order of the learned Magistrate, Dhanera, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1991 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, vide order dated 21.4. 1995 reduced the sentence for the alleged offence to the extent of six months and also reduced the fine of Rs.500/, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 15 days.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, the present applicant has preferred this Revision.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Gondalia appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that he is not arguing this matter on merits, but arguing on the quantum of punishment and he prayed to reduce the sentence.
6. The learned APP Mr. H.L. Jani for the State strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant. He contended that the judgment and order of the lower Court is just and proper and as per the provisions of law; the lower Court has properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present applicant. He agreed to the submission of learned advocate of the applicant regarding reducing the sentence.
7. I have perused the judgment and order and reasons given by the learned Judge also. After the considering the evidence, both the Courts below have held the applicant guilty of the offences and sentenced the applicant. The applicant was ordered to undergo S.I. as stated above.
8. I have considered his submission about the quantum of punishment and the applicant is in jail since long time and, therefore, looking to the quantum of punishment, the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge to undergo S.I. for 6 months is required to be modified. This Revision is of 1995.
9. In view of the above observation, this is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 21.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1991 is modified to the extent of three months instead of six months. Rest of the order of passed by the lower Court is confirmed. R & P, if received, be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)