PEMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Pema Ram has been convicted under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on 28 -11 -1984 on the ground that on 23 -12 -1982, the Excise Officials recovered from his house a earthen pitcher Ekw.k containing fermented wash measuring about 50 litres and a furnacte ihik HkB~Bh ftl es ,d Nsn gS along with a Chatli' and on chemical analysis of the samples taken from the wash, it was found to be on excersiable article. His appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra has been dismissed on 2 -4 -1985. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should have been dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, as according to the finding of the learned Sessions Judge him self he was less than 21 years of age on the date of this recovery and the learned Sessions Judge has not given any reasons for refusing to deal with him under the Probation of Offenders Act except saying that it was a social offence and the quantity of the wash was huge and that implements for manufacturing liquor had been recovered from his possession.

(3.) LOOKING to all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the courts below were not justified in refusing the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner in the circumstances of this case. The learned Sessions Judge has found the accused -petitioner to be less than 21 years of age on the date of the recovery of the aforesaid articles. It is true that the quantity of the fermented wash is alleged to be about 50 litres but it is only by way of approximation and there is no definite evidence about it. So far as the question of recovery of the implements for manufacturing liquor are concerned, description of the articles given in the recovery memo is not quite clear and the articles given in the recovery memo is not quite clear and the articles do not appear to have been produced before the court so that definite opinion could be formed whether they were necessarily implements for manufacturing the liquor.