[2023:RJ-JD:31913] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 492/2002 Gafoor Khan S/o Shri Jamal Khan, B/c Muslim, Aged 39 years, R/o Village Mawa, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (At present Central Jail Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. LD Khatri Mr. Sharwan KUmar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 27/09/2023 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal No.38/2000 by learned District & Session Judge, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment dated 03.10.2000 passed in Cr. Original Case No.18/1994 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration, 1954 (hereinafter shall be referred as "the Act of 1954") and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:38:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31913] (2 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002] Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.1994, complainant Bhanwarlal Purohit, Food Inspector, Jaisalmer submitted a complaint to the effect that on 23.09.1993 at about 6:00 AM in the morning, during checking at Nachana Chouraha, he caught the petitioner, who was going to sell cow milk to public without any food licence. The petitioner disclosed his name as Gafoor Khan. The complainant took sample of 750 ML milk from the petitioner and equally filled in three bottles and after completion of all the formalities, sealed these three bottles and sent for testing. In the report, the milk was found adulterated.
The accused-petitioner appeared before the trial court and the trial court recorded the statement of complainant - Bhanwarlal Purohit as PW-1 before framing of charge. Thereafter, charge for offence under Section 7/16 of Act of 1954 was framed. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 3 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 03.10.2000 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.10.2000, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2002. Hence this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused- petitioner.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:38:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31913] (3 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002] At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1993 and out of total sentence of six months S.I., the accused petitioner has already served ten days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1993 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of ten days in custody out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 is reduced from six months to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954, the sentence awarded to him is hereby (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:38:59 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:31913] (4 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002] reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed by the trial court has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 10-MS/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:38:59 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)