PURA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the joint request of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the revision was heard today on merits and is disposed of by this order.

(2.) Accused Pura was convicted under Sec. 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 and was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200.00 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1), Udaipur. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur. He maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused. The accused has come up in revision.

(3.) The only submission made by Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that no previous conviction stands at the discredit of the accused. The offence was committed merely five years ago in 1980 and only 25 bottles of illicit liquor were found in his possession. It was argued that the Rajasthan Prohibition Act is now no more in force and is a dead law. It was submitted that the courts below have not assigned reasons for not extending the benefit of probation to the accused which they were required to state under Sec. 360 and 361 Crimial P.C. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the offence is uti-social and affects the finance of the State. I have taken the respective submission into consideration. Admittedly no previous conviction stands at the discredit if accused Pura. Both the courts below have not recorded reasons for not extending benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused. In the circumstances of case, it would not be improper to extend the benefit of probation of good conduct to the accused.