N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Having perused the impugned judgments, I am satisfied that the learned Courts below have not committed any error in convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.
(3.) Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned lower appellate Court has given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act to the other co-accused-Pyara Singh while it has erroneously declined to give benefit of the Act to the petitioner. It is contended that the only reason given is that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner did not appear on the date of hearing, but then according to the learned counsel, there is nothing to show that during this period, the petitioner has misused the liberty of bail, and in addition, he has already paid a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner should also be given benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or in any case, since the petitioner has already remained in custody atleast since 11.1.2001 i.e. after the date of impugned judgment, a liberal view be taken by reducing the period of substantive sentence to the period already undergone.;