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.

Godhu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Godhu vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 25, 1985
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770247

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. Criminal Revision Petition No. 72 of 1985
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 - Section 16 & 54--Sentence--Accused young man of 25 years--One bottle of illicit liquor recovered--Undergone imprisonment for a few days- Held, (1) he should be granted benefit of probation (2) Prosecution of manufacturing illicit liquor is not justified when he was not found in posse...

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Godhu

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1985WLN(UC)640

Excerpt

rajasthan excise act, 1950 - section 16 & 54--sentence--accused young man of 25 years--one bottle of illicit liquor recovered--undergone imprisonment for a few days- held, (1) he should be granted benefit of probation (2) prosecution of manufacturing illicit liquor is not justified when he was not found in possession of workable still and quantity of wash;a pitcher of fermented work and a jerrycan containing one bottle of illicit liquor were recovered. the accused is a young man of about 25 years. he is not a previous convict. looking to the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a few days. i am of the opinion that he may be granted the benefit of probation. the courts below refused probation to him on the supposition that he was engaged in the manufacture or sale of illicit liquor but such a presumption cannot be said to be justified on the facts of the case as he has not been found in possession of workable still nor the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor recovered are such which may give rise to the only presumption that he was selling or possessing for sale the recovered articles.;revision partly allowed. - - 3000/- (rupees three thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, balotra to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour......hence this revision.2. although in the memo of revision, the conviction of the petitioner has been challenged but at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up this contention and only prayed that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor who has accepted notice, in respect of this contention.4. the case against the petitioner is that on the search of his dhani on 31-5-1983 by the excise inspector a pitcher of fermented work and a jerrycan containing one bottle of illicit liquor were recovered. the accused is a young man of about 25 years. he is not a previous convict. looking to the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a few days, i am of the opinion that he may be granted the benefit of probation. the courts below refused probation to him on the supposition that he was engaged in the manufacture or sale of illicit liquor but such a presumption cannot be said to be justified on the facts of the case as he has not been found in possession of workable still nor the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor recovered are such which may give rise to the only presumption that he was selling or possessing for sale the recovered articles.5. i, therefore, partly allow this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 16/54 of the excise act, set aside the sentence awarded to him. he is not sentenced to any punishment forthwith but shall be released on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of rs. 3000/- (rupees three thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, balotra to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be.....

Full Judgment

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. The petitioner Godhu has been convicted under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further simple imprisonment of one month by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra on 9-1-1985 and appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra has been dismissed on 21-2-1985. Hence this revision.

2. Although in the memo of revision, the conviction of the petitioner has been challenged but at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner gave up this contention and only prayed that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may be granted benefit of probation.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who has accepted notice, in respect of this contention.

4. The case against the petitioner is that on the search of his Dhani on 31-5-1983 by the Excise Inspector a pitcher of fermented work and a Jerrycan containing one bottle of illicit liquor were recovered. The accused is a young man of about 25 years. He is not a previous convict. Looking to the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a few days, I am of the opinion that he may be granted the benefit of probation. The courts below refused probation to him on the supposition that he was engaged in the manufacture or sale of illicit liquor but such a presumption cannot be said to be justified on the facts of the case as he has not been found in possession of workable still nor the quantity of the wash and the illicit liquor recovered are such which may give rise to the only presumption that he was selling or possessing for sale the recovered articles.

5. I, therefore, partly allow this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act, set aside the sentence awarded to him. He is not sentenced to any punishment forthwith but shall be released on his entering into a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon to do so within a period of two years and in the meantime to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour.

6. I, further direct that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/-by way of costs of the proceeding to the State.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial