Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Danaram Choudhary vs State on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-394/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 394/2001
Danaram Choudhary S/o Shri Narayanram, B/c Choudhary (Jat),
Proprietor Firm Ma Bhawani Kirana Store, Resident of Plot No.4,
Shakti Nagar, Out side Third Pol, Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
04/07/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred on
28.07.1993 and the present criminal revision has been pending
since the year 2001.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 30.06.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.7/2000, whereby the
judgment dated 18.06.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jodhpur in Original Case No.142/94, convicting the
revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for
the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act and was sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to
undergo further one month's S.I.
(Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 08:39:15 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-394/2001]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already undergone sentence of 45 days and about
29 years elapsed since the incident, and thus, he makes a limited
prayer of letting go the petitioner on the sentence already
undergone.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 13.08.2001 in
S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.92/2001.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
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
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."
(Downloaded on 05/07/2022 at 08:39:15 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-394/2001]
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. This Court looking into the facts and circumstances and the
gravity of the allegations particularly the nature of adulteration is
convinced that it is a fit case for letting go the petitioner in the
sentence already undergone by him.
9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. However,
the fine imposed earlier shall be set off, if already deposited.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
38-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
