Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tola Ram And Anr vs State on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLR-427/2000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 427/2000
Tola Ram And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.S. Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
27/04/2022
1. 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.
2. Mr. A.S. Rathore, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to
argue the matter on behalf of the accused-petitioners under the
free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
3. The revision petition has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
application may be allowed and during the pendency
of the revision sentence of the petitioners passed by
learned trial court vide judgment dated 23.03.2020
and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.3, Udaipur vide judgment dt. 25.08.2000 may
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:49:01 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-427/2000]
kindly be suspended and the petitioners may kindly
be released on bail."
4. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1997 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2000.
5. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 25.08.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.13/2000 (16/2000) whereby
the judgment dated 23.03.2000 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.543/2000
convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioners
were convicted for the offence under Sections 7/16 Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of the petitioners were
reduced from one year to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/-
each in default of payment of which, they were ordered to
undergo further 15 days R.I.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
petitioners were suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order
dated 01.09.2000 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for
Suspension of Sentence No.126/2000.
7. 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.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:49:01 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-427/2000]
9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
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..."
10. 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
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the
sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:49:01 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-427/2000]
undergone by them. The petitioners are bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds stands discharged accordingly.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
56-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
