Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Gendlal s/o Surjumal Jaiswal, aged about 78 years at the time of filing, was convicted by the trial court and appellate court for offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for storing 2016 liquor bottles at his house. He filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court heard the learned APP for the State, as no one appeared for the applicant. The court examined the impugned judgments and found that the finding of fact regarding possession of liquor was based on prosecution evidence and chemical analyzer's report, and was not perverse. The court affirmed the conviction. However, considering the applicant's age (82 years as on the date of judgment) and that he had already undergone about one month of imprisonment after dismissal of his appeal, the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone. The revision was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Possession of Liquor - Conviction under Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a) of Bombay Prohibition Act - Finding of fact that applicant stored 2016 liquor bottles at his house based on evidence of prosecution witnesses and chemical analyzer's report - Held that finding is not perverse and is affirmed (Paras 2-3).
B) Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Age of Applicant - Applicant aged 82 years, underwent about one month imprisonment - Held that sentence already undergone subserves ends of justice, no need to put him in jail again (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act is sustainable and whether the sentence should be modified considering the applicant's age and period already undergone.
Final Decision
Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The finding of conviction is maintained. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the applicant in jail.
Law Points
- Sentence modification based on age and period already undergone
- Conviction for possession of liquor under Bombay Prohibition Act
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 113
Criminal Revision Application No.145/2005
Gendlal s/o Surjumal Jaiswal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction and sentence under Bombay Prohibition Act
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought to challenge conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act
Filing Reason
Applicant was convicted for storing 2016 liquor bottles at his house, found in possession contrary to the Act
Previous Decisions
Trial court and appellate court convicted the applicant; appeal was dismissed on 13.7.2005 and applicant was released on bail by High Court on 8.8.2005
Issues
Whether the finding of fact regarding possession of liquor is perverse
Whether the sentence should be modified considering the applicant's age and period already undergone
Submissions/Arguments
None for the applicant
Learned APP for the State supported the conviction and sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The finding of fact regarding possession of liquor based on evidence is not perverse and is affirmed. However, considering the applicant's advanced age (82 years) and that he has already undergone about one month of imprisonment, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone to subserve the ends of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The finding of fact that the applicant had stored 2016 liquor bottles at his house and thus was found in possession of the liquor contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act cannot be said to be perverse.
Looking to the age of the applicant which must be 82 years as on date and the nature of offence, in my opinion, the sentence that is undergone by him would subserve the ends of justice and there is no further need to put him in jail again.
Procedural History
The applicant was convicted by the trial court and appellate court for offences under Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. His appeal was dismissed on 13.7.2005. He was released on bail by the High Court on 8.8.2005. He then filed the present criminal revision application.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Prohibition Act: 66(1)(b), 65(a)
