Surta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

rajasthan prohibition act, 1969 - section 4 (1) (e)--sentence--recovery of fermented wash in 1976 from house of accused--undergone eustody for 1 month--held, it is not proper to send him to jail.;the matter relates to recovery of furmented wash from the chhapra of the house of the petitioner in the year 1976.;i do not consider it proper to send the petitioner behind the bar now specially when he had already remained in custody for a period of one month.;revision partly allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....act, 1969, and sentence of three month's simple imprisonment and a fine of rs. 300/-in default, two months. simple imprisonment awarded by the chief judicial magistrate jaisalmer, on 3-12-1977 was upheld.2. at the commencement of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not want to press the revision petition on merit, but submitted that in view of the fact that a period of more than five years has lapsed since the alleged date of the occurrence, a lenient view may be taken.3. in view of the facts and circumstances of the ease, the learned publie prosecutor does not dispute this prayer.4. the perusal of the record shows that the matter relates to recovery of furmented wash from the chhapra of the house of the petitioner in the year 1976. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the lapse of period of more than five years since the commission of the offence, i do not consider it proper to send the petitioner behind the bar now specially when he had already remained in custody for a period of one month.5. hence the ends of justice would meet, if the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period he had undergone along with the amount of fine imposed by the trial court.6. consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. the conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid charge is maintained. the substantive sentence of three months' simple imprisonment is reduced to the period the petitioner has undergone. the sentence of fine of rs. 300/- (rupees three hundred), in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment is, however, maintained.7. at the request of shri k.c. gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, two months' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine in the court of the chief judicial magistrate, jaisalmer.