Kamal Kishore And Anr vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:25798)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5804 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:25798]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 369/2001

1. Kamal Kishore S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Bhutra, B/c Maheshwari, R/o C/o Rajesh Kirana and Provision Store, Ghantaghar, Jodhpur

2. Rajesh S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Bhutra, B/c Maheshwari, R/o C/o Rajesh Kirrana and Provision Store, Ghantaghar, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

11/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under

Section 397/401 of the CrPC challenge has been made to the

judgment dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.16/2000,

whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2000 passed by

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case

No.107/1995; whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the

offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months

alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of 7 days'

simple imprisonment.

[2023:RJ-JD:25798] (2 of 5) [CRLR-369/2001]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 09.10.1995,

Mr. P.C. Harsh, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the accused

petitioners M/s. Rajesh Kirana and Provision Store situated at

Ghantaghar, Jodhpur. Petitioner Kamal Kishore was found selling

food articles. He told that the owner of the shop is Rajesh. The

Food Inspector purchased 1.5 kg. salt from the shop paying

Rs.2.25 and took three samples of same and got it tested from

Public Analyst, who gave a report that the sample was

adulterated, upon which, after taking prosecution sanction, a

complaint was filed against the petitioners.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food

Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the

trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove

the offences, examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited

various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the

prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313

CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. One

witness was examined 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 petitioners for offence under Section 7/16

of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 30.03.2000.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an

[2023:RJ-JD:25798] (3 of 5) [CRLR-369/2001]

appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide

judgment dated 07.07.2001 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 petitioners submits that he will not

assail conviction of the petitioners 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 1995. The petitioners were petty

shopkeepers. They were not having any criminal antecedents and

it was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse

remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned

judgment. The petitioners have already suffered agony of

protracted trial of 28 years. The petitioners have remained in

custody for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a

lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners 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 petitioners and they

had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that they have

remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the

judgment in appeal.

[2023:RJ-JD:25798] (4 of 5) [CRLR-369/2001]

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

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 1995. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of

the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the

Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of

protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 28 years and

have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

It was the first criminal case registered against them. They have

not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except

this one. They have remained incarcerated for some time after

passing of the judgment in appeal. In view of the facts noted

above, the case of the petitioners deserves to be dealt with

leniency. The petitioners also deserve 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 and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal

antecedents of the petitioners, their status in the society and the

[2023:RJ-JD:25798] (5 of 5) [CRLR-369/2001]

fact that they 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 petitioners is reduced to the

period already undergone by them.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2000

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in

Criminal Case No.107/1995 as well as the judgment in appeal

dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.16/2000 are affirmed

but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court

for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, is

modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till

date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender.

Their bail bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 100-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)