ANIL NARENDRABHAI BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned orders passed by the trial Court in Summary Case No.6071 of 1994 by order dated 30.10.2001 and further confirmed by the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2001 by order dated 12.6.2006 vide which he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 4 months and fine of Rs.1000/ -.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the conviction recorded against the petitioner. However, he has confined his argument qua the quantum of sentence. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been sufficiently punished as having faced the trial for all these years. According to him, the petitioner was the first offender and there was no prior history of his involvement in intoxication or consumption of liquor. According to him, the conviction of imprisonment for a period of 4 months was on the higher side. He has to support the family consisting son, daughter, living wife and old parents.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the petitioner was an employee of disciplined force and no leniency should be shown in this case in view of the fact that the petitioner was required to maintain law and order in the society.