AMRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 20th December 1989 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Sessions Judge Sikar dismissed die appeal field by the accused petitioner against his conviction and sentence u/s. 16/54(a)(c)(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 for short the Act) and was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one monthTs simple imprisonment

(2.) The facts of the case are contained in the judgment of the courts below and need not be stated here and suffice to say that on receiving information from mukbbir that accused was working still and manufacturing liquor the excise inspector after recording the reasons as required u/s. 57 of the Act in writing to the search and found that the accused petitioner was manufacturing liquor and was working still. It was seen by him that a tin was on the oven and there we fermented wash and a few bottles of liquor were manufactured. Samples were taken, corcked, wrapped and sealed and were sent to the chemical examiner and the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur and on examination it was found that the sample of liquor contained 54.O8% under proof they alcohol and sample of fermented wash was found to contain 95.84% under proof ehty alchobol. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner who came to be tried and plea of the accused-petitioner before the learned trial court was of bare denial 3Dd he did not examine any witness in defence. He was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and his appeal too was dismissed.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused is aged about 70 years and, therefore, his case should have been, dealt with under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. The learned Magistrate under his judgment has observed that the accused has been previously convicted in two such like cases and, therefore, he does not think it proper to give the benefit of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused petitioner. The learned appellate out has also agreed with the learned Trial Court.