Mala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mala Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 10, 1986

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760229

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760229
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
Decided On: Sep 10, 1986
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Revision No. 250 of 1979
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 - Section 60 and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958--Section 4--Sentence--Offence committed 9 years back--Accused not previous convict--Only 1 bottle of liquor recovered from his possession--Undergone imprisonment for more than 1-1/2 month--Held, benefit of probation be given to accused...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mala Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1987(1)WLN511

Excerpt

rajasthan prohibition act, 1969 - section 60 and probation of offenders act, 1958--section 4--sentence--offence committed 9 years back--accused not previous convict--only 1 bottle of liquor recovered from his possession--undergone imprisonment for more than 1-1/2 month--held, benefit of probation be given to accused.;revision 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. - however, instead of sentencing him at once to imprisonment, i direct that the petitioner shall be released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond of rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the munsif judicial magistrate, ratangarh, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years as the said court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour......further rigorous imprisonment. both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. the case relates to the incident which took place on august 2, 1977. the prosecution case, in brief, was that the petitioner on the date of the incident was manufacturing liquor in a field of village bandwa. shri karam singh head constable, police station, rajaldesar found the accused manufacturing liquor. he took in possession one bottle of liquor and the implements used in the manufacture of liquor. shri karam singh lodged a report at police station, ratangarh on which a case under the prohibition. act was registered and investigation started. after investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused in the court of munsif and judicial magistrate ratangarh. after trial the learned magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. on appeal, the learned sessions judge upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned munsif magistrate. aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision in this court.3. the learned courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the accused was found in possession of one bottle of liquor and the implements for manufacturing liquor, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the prosecution has not led evidence to show that liquor and implements were duly sealed. i have gone through the statement of karam singh who in terms has stated that the bottle of liquor and the implements were duly sealed. there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness, more so when this point was not urged before the learned court below. learned counsel has further urged that the search of the accused was illegal. i have gone through the judgments of the learned courts below. no prejudice has been shown by the seizure at the spot by the head constable. i do not, therefore, find any substance in this contention either.4. learned counsel has next urged that the occurrence took place in 1977, a.....

Full Judgment

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

1. The petitioner stands convicted and sentenced by the judgment dated 20th December, 1978 of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Churu by the judgment dated July 19, 1979 for the offence under Section 4(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to go one month's further rigorous imprisonment and under Section 4(2) of the said Act to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to one month's further rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case relates to the incident which took place on August 2, 1977. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the petitioner on the date of the incident was manufacturing liquor in a field of village Bandwa. Shri Karam Singh Head constable, police station, Rajaldesar found the accused manufacturing liquor. He took in possession one bottle of liquor and the implements used in the manufacture of liquor. Shri Karam Singh lodged a report at police station, Ratangarh on which a case under the Prohibition. Act was registered and investigation started. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ratangarh. After trial the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision in this Court.

3. The learned courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the accused was found in possession of one bottle of liquor and the implements for manufacturing liquor, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the prosecution has not led evidence to show that liquor and implements were duly sealed. I have gone through the statement of Karam Singh who in terms has stated that the bottle of liquor and the implements were duly sealed. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness, more so when this point was not urged before the learned court below. Learned Counsel has further urged that the search of the accused was illegal. I have gone through the judgments of the learned courts below. No prejudice has been shown by the seizure at the spot by the Head constable. I do not, therefore, find any substance in this contention either.

4. Learned Counsel has next urged that the occurrence took place in 1977, a period of nine years has elapsed since then the accused has already served a sentence of one month and twenty days and no previous conviction was proved against the accused and therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on probation. This Court has consistently taken the view that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to accused who is convicted under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 though the offence is punishable with two years imprisonment and with fine extending to Rs. 2000/- (see 1984 Cr.LR (Raj.). 744).

5. Admittedly no previous conviction was shown to exist against the petitioner. The offence was committed as back as in August, 1977. The accused has already undergone a sentence of one month and twenty days. It would not be in the interest of justice to send the accused to jail again after a lapse of more than nine years. While upholding the order of conviction, I allow the revision petition on the question of sentence. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 4(1)(e) and (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 is maintained. However, instead of sentencing him at once to imprisonment, I direct that the petitioner shall be released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond of Rs. 2000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Munsif Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years as the said court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pray that two month's time may be allowed to the petitioner for furnishing the bond and surety. Two months time is allowed as prayed for. In case the petitioner fails to do so he will undergo the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Judge as aforesaid.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1986 Same Parties Mala Ram vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

Criminal