AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 228 wordsMilap Chand Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner was convicted of the offence u/s 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.
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.
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.
He is already on bail, so, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are discharged.