Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sahabram vs State on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 568/1998
Sahabram S/o Lalchand, by caste Kumar, resident of Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
(At present lodged in District Jail, Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shree Kant Verma with
Mr. Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/04/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that on
17.04.1989, the Food Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Rawatsar
went to the shop situated near Ramdev Temple, Rawatsar and
purchased a particular Chilly Powder. The Chilly Powder was
divided into three samples and the same were sent to the Public
Analyst Expert, Sriganganagar and the adulterated Chilly was
established.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
conviction has been made by the learned trial court as well as the
learned appellate court on the ground of the report alone whereas
(Downloaded on 11/04/2022 at 08:24:19 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-568/1998]
the prosecution had not obtained the proper sanction in this case
and no application was filed in a mechanical sanction, which was
there on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
cyclostyle sanction order would not be appropriate to cause
conviction. Learned counsel also submits that the manner, in
which, the samples were collected, was also contrary to the
procedure established.
Learned counsel further submits that the sanctity of the
sample was lost as neither it was sealed nor it was taken as
required by law.
Learned Public Prosecutor however, opposes the submissions
on the ground that the samples were taken properly and the
conviction order was in accordance with law.
This Court, on seeing the record, finds that there is
discrepancy in collection of the samples as well as the learned
court below did not arrive at a conclusion that the samples itself
were taken adopting the proper procedure of law. The cyclostyle
sanction submissions have also not been properly dealt with. The
burden of proof could not efficaciously discharged by the
prosecution. The benefit ought to have gone to the accused. The
appeal of the year 1998 and the incident is of the year 1989.
This Court also takes note of the fact that the Exhibit P-9 has
overwriting, and thus, cannot be said to be fully trustworthy. The
prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 & PW-3 were also hostile.
In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed.
The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner vide
judgment dated 13.08.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.)
cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar in Criminal Case
(Downloaded on 11/04/2022 at 08:24:19 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-568/1998]
No.30/90 as affirmed by the judgment dated 11.09.1998 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Criminal Appeal
No.46/97, is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is
acquitted from the charge.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
43-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
