Shyam Singh Hada vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5589 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24946]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 947/2023

Shyam Singh Hada S/o Laxman Singh Hada, Aged About 38 Years, In Front Of National Service Center, Kota Road, Sanganer Colony, Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara).

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

04/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 26.07.2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bhilwara in

Criminal appeal No.222/2018, whereby the learned appellate court

affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

02.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.12003/2014; whereby

the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section

7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months alongwith a fine of

Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of 15 days' simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on Mr. Sanjay,

Food Inspector, Bhilwara submitted a complaint in the Court of the

[2023:RJ-JD:24946] (2 of 5) [CRLR-947/2023]

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara to the effect that on 16.11.2009

at about 04.10 p.m., he went to M/s. Prem Kirana Store for

checking and found the seller/owner Shyam Singh Hada selling

Ghee, oil and unpacked spices etc. On asking about the

licence/permit, he could not furnish the same. On inspecting the

shop, 8-10 kg turmeric power found lying in an iron container. On

suspecting adulteration, a sample of the same was taken. Upon

testing done by Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer, the said turmeric

power was opined to be "not upto the standard", thus, the same

was adulterated and misbranded.

3. On the aforesaid complaint, the learned Magistrate took

cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section

7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Charge was

framed against the petitioner for the above offence, to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial,

the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many

as 5 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The accused, upon

being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement

under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be

innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after

hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence

Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence,

learned trial court convicted the accused for offence under Section

7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment

dated 02.08.2018. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he

preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate

[2023:RJ-JD:24946] (3 of 5) [CRLR-947/2023]

court vide judgment dated 26.07.2023 affirming the judgment

passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed

before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case

pertains to the year 2009. The petitioner was a petty shopkeeper

aged about 24 years at that time. He was not having any criminal

antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against

him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except

the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 14 years. He is in judicial custody after

passing of the judgment by the appellate court on 26.07.2023.

With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a

lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was

the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had

no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he is presently in

judicial custody after passing of the judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

[2023:RJ-JD:24946] (4 of 5) [CRLR-947/2023]

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 2009, in which turmeric powder "not upto the standard"

was found in his store for selling. The right to speedy and

expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights

guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already

suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of

more than 14 years and has been in the corridors of the court for

this prolonged period. He was a petty shopkeeper aged about 24

years at the time of the incident. It is stated that there is no

other responsible member to look after his family and they are

struggling to survive. It was the first criminal case registered

against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other

criminal case except this one. He is in judicial custody since the

date of passing of the judgment in appeal, i.e. 26.07.2023. In

view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves

to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit

of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus,

guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West

Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony

Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648

[2023:RJ-JD:24946] (5 of 5) [CRLR-947/2023]

and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of

appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and

the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through

mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would

be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the

period already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2018

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2,

Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.12003/2014 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Criminal appeal

No.222/2018 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded

by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 7/16 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is modified to the extent that

the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioner is in

judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in

any other case.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. The application

seeking suspension of sentence and other pending applications, if

any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 206-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)