Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Laxmi Food Products And Ors vs State on 13 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 286/2000
M/s Laxmi Food Products And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta for Mr. SK Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.s. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
13/04/2022
1. In the 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 the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred on 1992
and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year
2000.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 17.06.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.24/99, whereby the judgment
dated 25.06.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief J udicial
Magistrate, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.193/93, convicting the
revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioners No.2 and 3
were convicted for the offence under Sections 7 read with Section
16(1)(a)(I) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and were
(Downloaded on 19/04/2022 at 08:13:06 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-286/2000]
sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, they were
ordered to undergo further 15 days' Rigorous Imprisonment. The
petitioner no.1 was convicted for the offence under Sections 7
read with Section 16(1)(a)(I) of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act and were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; further, he
petitioners No.2 and 3 were convicted for the offence under
Sections 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(I) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and were sentenced to undergo three months
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further 10 days'
Rigorous Imprisonment; and the petitioners No.1 was convicted
for the offence under Sections 50(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(I)
of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.500/-. The sentences were to run concurrently.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 26.06.2000
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail / Suspension of Sentence
Petition No.87/2000.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
(Downloaded on 19/04/2022 at 08:13:06 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-286/2000]
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
In Haripada Das (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
while considering reduction of sentence to the period
already undergone by the convicted therein under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, observed as under:
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(I) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The petitioners No.2 & 3 are
(Downloaded on 19/04/2022 at 08:13:06 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-286/2000]
on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stands
discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
35-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
