HALKA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for Halka, petitioner, and perused the judgements of both the Courts below. Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this revision petition may be admitted and disposed of today after giving notice to the Public Prosecutor as the point involved in it is a short one regarding severity of sentence.

(2.) The revision petition, is, therefore, admitted and notice thereof was given to Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. Dr. S. S. Bbandawat, accepts the notice and is prepared to argue the case. Hence, arguments of Mr. N. N. Mathur and the Public Prosecutor were heard. Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the findings of the both the Courts below as to the guilt of the petitioner under section 4 sub-section (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969.

(3.) Upon perusal of the judgements of both the Courts below, I am satisfied that the petitioner was rightly convicted for the aforesaid offence for having been found in possession of a bladder containing about two bottles of illicit wine. The wine was proved to be illicit by the report of the Chemical Examiner. The Petitioners possession of the bladder containing illicit wine was proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 Amara, P.W. 2 Usman and P.W. 5 Laxmi Chand. Both the Courts below have relied upon their evidence and I see absolutely no reason to take a different view. As regards the sentences, it may be observed that the petitioner has no previous conviction for similar offence to his dis-credit. Besides, he has been facing the trial since 1974 and has already under-gone about 1 months simple imprisonment, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is further reduced to a term already under gone by him while maintaining the fine of Rs, 200.00 and 15 days simple imprisonment in default of payment thereof.