Ram Achal Rawat vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

By means of this revision the revisionist is challenging his conviction u/s 60 of Excise Act whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 500/-with default stipulation.

Initially the trial Court had convicted the revisionist and sentenced him with simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

Against the order of trial court, the revisionist preferred an appeal and in appeal his conviction was upheld and fine was reduced from Rs. 1,000/-to Rs. 500/-but the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month was maintained.

Now the revisionist prays that the sentence is excessive and it be reduced only to fine. No other illegality in the impugned judgments has been pointed out.

u/s 60 of the Excise Act it is provided that a person who violates the rules and regulations mentioned in this Section shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years and with fine which shall, in the case of an offence under clause (i) not be less than ten times the amount of duty which would have been leviable if such intoxicant had been dealt with in accordance with this Act and the rules and order made thereunder or in accordance with any licence, permit or pass obtained thereunder, and in any other case, not be less than ten times the amount of such duty, or five hundred rupees, whichever is greater.

(2) Whoever in contravention of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or of any licence, permit or pass, obtained under this Act, manufactures any intoxicant or imports, exports, transports or possesses any charas, shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months and which may extend to three years and also with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees.

(3) Whoever, in contravention of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, consumes any intoxicant, shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees and which may extend to one thousand rupees.

In view of the aforesaid provision of law the sentence imposed on the revisionist cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. Since no other illegally has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the matter.

The case of the petitioner falls within Section 60 (i) of the Excise Act which provides the imprisonment and fine. So the prayer of the revisionist cannot be accepted as the punishment is already on the lower side. There is no illegality in the order.

Therefore, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.