State Of Gujarat (S) v. Nanubhai Khushalbhai Solanki Opponent(S)/(S)

G.B Shah, J.:— The appellant - State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) against the order dated 26/06/2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (3rd Court), Vadodara, in Summary Case No. 2001 of 1992, whereby, the respondent herein - original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Prohibition Act as well as Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two days.

2. Brief facts of the case are such that the respondent - accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 66(1)(b) and 85(1)(3) of the Prohibition Act as well as Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act. Before the trial Court, the respondent-accused pleaded guilty and considering the fact that, before the trial Court, the report of FSL was not produced together with the fact that the case was 13 years old and the age of the accused at the relevant time was more than 65 years and the family and financial condition of the accused and also taking into consideration the pronouncement of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1998, the trial Court imposed the aforesaid sentence, which since found to be inadequate, the State has filed the present appeal for enhancement of sentence.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that present appeal has been admitted vide order dated 21/03/2006, however, the notice of admission of the present appeal has remained unserved so far and nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-accused.

4. Heard, Mr. K.L Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State.

5. It is the fact that the notice of admission has remained unserved but the fact remains that the original case, registered against the respondent - accused, was of the year 1992 and the same had been decided on 26/06/2003 by way of the impugned order and referring the order itself, it appears that though the offence was admitted by the respondent - accused by submitting a pursis and accordingly, plea of the accused was recorded, but it further appears that in the police papers, the report of FSL was not produced by the prosecution. Moreover, considering the fact that the case was 13 years old and considering the age of the respondent - accused, who was more than 65 years in the year 2003, the trial Court has passed the impugned order. It is also a fact that in the present appeal, which has been filed in the year 2003, the notice of admission has yet not been served upon the respondent - accused and he fact that in absence of the FSL report, the trial Court has convicted the respondent - accused, it appears just and proper, more particularly, when a span of more than 12 years has elapsed besides the old age of the respondent-accused, who, at the relevant time, was aged 65 years and now, he must of an age more than 75 years and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that more efforts to serve the respondent-accused may not serve any fruitful purpose and accordingly, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned order dated 26/06/2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (3 Court), Vadodara, in Summary Case No. 2001 of 1992, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.