Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deep Chand vs State on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 523/2001
Deep Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
12/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 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 03.09.2001 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.29/2001, whereby the
judgment dated 15.10.1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.83/1995, 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 S.I. and a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to
undergo further three months simple imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:24 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-523/2001]
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 09.10.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) Application No.118/2001.
4. 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.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
6. 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
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:24 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-523/2001]
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
7. 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 offences under
Section 7/16 of 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.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
57-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
