BADRINARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dtd. 17/9/2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No.14/2005 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioners' appeal, upheld the judgment dtd. 3/3/2005 passed in Cr. Case No.216/2002 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Shri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Sec. 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced each of them to undergo two years' R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo four months' S.I. Brief facts of the case are that while investigating in another matter, on 4/1/2002, Shri Ram Pratap, SHO, PS Sri Vijaynagar reached at the field of one Udaram and where he found the present petitioners preparing country-made liquor on a 'Bhatti' without any permit or licence. After collecting the samples of country-made liquor and on completion of usual procedure, the Police arrested all the petitioners and registered a case against them for offence under Sec. 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and commenced investigation.

(2.) On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Sec. 16/54(A)(C)(D) of Excise Act against the petitioners, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, seven witnesses were examined.

(3.) Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dtd. 3/3/2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dtd. 17/9/2008. Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.