S.C.MITAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 10.4.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Appeal No. 18/2000 whereby the judgment and sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sadul Shahar dated 28.9.1999 was confirmed whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 19/54, Rajasthan Excise Act and ordered to undergo the year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
(2.) IT is not necessary to give the facts of the case because the learned Counsel for the petitioners has not advanced arguments on the merits of the conviction. I have also perused the judgments of the two courts below in which the learned judicial Magistrate and in appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the oral and documentary evidence and have reached the concurrent finding of conviction after giving cogent lessons to accept the prosecution evidence. I do not see any legal or any other grounds to interfere in the concurrent findings of the two courts below. However, the learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioners may be released by giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act on the ground that it is the first case against them. The petitioner Kishan Lal is aged 55 years. The age of petitioner No. 2 Prakash is 22 years. Moreover, they have already suffered imprisonment from 10.4.2000 and 5 days imprisonment during the trial. Thus they have already undergone imprisonment for one month and twenty one days. 1987 R.C.C. Vol. 12 Page 317 (Banta Singh v. State) and 1989 R.C.C. Vol. 1 Page 57 (Jangir Singh v. State) have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed to grant and benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act looking to the facts of the case that 2000 pouches were recovered in a jeep which was driven by the petitioner Kishan Lal and it was not stopped on giving signal for checking. It is further submitted that in case the court considers regarding the quantum of sentence of the petitioners, then the amount of fine may be enhanced.
(3.) I have considered regarding the quantum of sentence. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone but to enhance the fine of Rs. 500/ - to Rs. 1000/ -and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.;