Rasid vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 7562 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 228/2005

Rasid S/o Ghisa B/c Meo R/o Karouli Jageer, Panchayat Samiti,
Chirva, Tehsil-Ramgarh, Distt. Alwar.
(The accused petitioner is at present Central Jail Alwar)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

13/12/2021

The revision petition has been preferred against the

Judgment dated 25.2.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions

Judge No.1, Alwar in criminal appeal no. 49/2004 whereby the

learned Judge partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the

conviction passed by the learned Trial Court reduced the sentence

from one year to six months, challenge has also been made to

the finding of guilt and order of sentence passed by the learned

ACJM No1, Alwar in cr. Case no. 60/2001 whereby vide judgment

dated 30.9.2004, the petitioner was convicted for accusation of

committing offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act and he was directed to suffer sentence of one

year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo one month's

additional simple imprisonment.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-228/2005]

Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that

for the incident dated 19.12.2000, the petitioner was prosecuted

for having adulterated milk and thus tried, convicted and

sentenced as mentioned above.

At the very outset, Mr.Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the commodity has not

been found spurious in the report of public analyst , however

some vegetable fat was found in the milk. Counsel submits that

the petitioner has faced the rigour of the trial and legal

proceedings for more than 21 years, therefore, a lenient view may

be taken against him and he may be released on the sentence he

has undergone till date. As per the record, the petitioner has

remained 08 days behind the bars, there is nothing on record to

show his complicity or involvement in any other criminal activity.

He has become old person now, therefore, looking to the fact that

legal proceedings have protracted for long 21 years and the case

is exclusively triable by the court of Magistrate wherein the

maximum punishment is not extendable to seven years

imprisonment, instead of challenging the conviction, he may be

set free for the period he has already undergone till now.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has

vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for

the petitioner.

Heard.

(3 of 3) [CRLR-228/2005]

After going through the record of the case of both the courts

below and looking to the totality of facts & circumstances of the

case, without going into the nicety of the matter, I deem it

appropriate to set free the petitioner for the period he has already

undergone while maintaining the judgment of conviction passed

by the court below.

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed and the

conviction awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the

learned Appellate Court is maintained. However, the period of

sentence is reduced to the period he has already undergone. The

bail bonds furnished by the petitioner stand canceled and are

hereby discharged. The record of the trial court be sent back

forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J

SANDEEP RAWAT /23/94

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)