Rajmal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition stands allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
- Punjab Excise Act s. 61(1)(a)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the provisions under Section 61-A has been amended vide Punjab Excise (Himachal Pradesh),Amendment Act, 2001 vide which the offence under Section 61(i)(a) is…
- Para 66. In view of the above circumstances, the petition stands disposed of. December 19, 2012 (veena) (V.K Ahuja), Judge.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner For the respondent : : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Justice V.K Ahuja, J. (Oral)
This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 25.4.2007 vide which he has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi dated 1.09.2004 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of ` 5000/- under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P.
A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the provisions under Section 61-A has been amended vide Punjab Excise (Himachal Pradesh),Amendment Act, 2001 vide which the offence under Section 61(i)(a) is compoundable and in case, the quantity of the liquor does not exceed up to 18 bulk liters of liquor and minimum amount of compounding is rupees one thousand but shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees. The amendment made in the Act Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 applies to the present case also since the offence whether committed before or after commencement of the Act, this provision of Section 61-A applies accordingly. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to compound the offence as per the above provision. 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
Operative part
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a poor man and only small quantity of one canny containing 5 liters of liquor was only recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the offence, in question stands compounded subject to the petitioner depositing the compensation amount to ` 1000/-. It has been submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amounting to ` 5000/- before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per the photocopy of the receipt placed on record. The sum of `1000/- shall be adjusted as compounding fee under the Act and balance amount of `. 4000/- if deposited, shall be released in favour of the petitioner after a period of two months from today. The petition stands allowed accordingly. The substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner and fine stands set-aside accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below for information and compliance. Case property be disposed of in accordance with the order passed by the Courts below.
In view of the above circumstances, the petition stands disposed of. December 19, 2012 (veena) (V.K Ahuja), Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition stands allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401; Punjab Excise Act — s. 61(1)(a).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.