Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Karam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Karam Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 08, 1987
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/768190

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Revision No. 365 of 1979
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 Section 54(a) Sentence - Incident 7 years old--Accused remained in custody for 12 days--Out of 144 bottles only 6 samples taken--Held, it is proper to reduce sentence to period of custody.;Revision Partly Allowed -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karam Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1987(2)WLN434

Excerpt

rajasthan excise act, 1950 section 54(a) sentence - incident 7 years old--accused remained in custody for 12 days--out of 144 bottles only 6 samples taken--held, it is proper to reduce sentence to period of custody.;revision partly allowed - milap chand jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. the petitioner was convicted of the offence under section 54(a) of the excise act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment by the munsif and judicial magistrate, 1st class raisinghnagar by his order dated 27-2-1979. his conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the sessions judge sriganganagar by his order dated 25th october, 1979.3. counsel for the petitioner urged that more than seven years have passed. the petitioner remained in custody for about 12 days, so, the petitioner's sentence may be reduced to the period of his total custody. he submitted that only six samples were taken out of 144 bottles and this court has taken the view that the recovery would be considered only of six bottles.4 in any case more than seven years have already passed so it would be proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period of his custody.5. accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed, conviction of the petitioner is maintained and the petitioner's sentence is reduced to the period of his custody already undergone by him.6. he is already on bail, so, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. his bail bonds are discharged.

Full Judgment

Milap Chand Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 54(a) of the Excise Act and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, 1st class Raisinghnagar by his order dated 27-2-1979. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge Sriganganagar by his order dated 25th October, 1979.

3. Counsel for the petitioner urged that more than seven years have passed. The petitioner remained in custody for about 12 days, so, the petitioner's sentence may be reduced to the period of his total custody. He submitted that only six samples were taken out of 144 bottles and this court has taken the view that the recovery would be considered only of six bottles.

4 In any case more than seven years have already passed so it would be proper to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period of his custody.

5. Accordingly this revision petition is partly allowed, conviction of the petitioner is maintained and the petitioner's sentence is reduced to the period of his custody already undergone by him.

6. He is already on bail, so, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial