Madan Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:26470)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5961 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26470]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 685/2003

Madan Lal son of Devi Lal, by caste Brahmin, resident of Dhanet Kalan, District Chittorgarh

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

17/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 31.07.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh

in Criminal appeal No.14/2003 (67/2001), whereby the learned

appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 01.05.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.281/1989;

whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under

Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

of 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence

of 1 month's additional simple imprisonment.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Dr. Amar Singh

[2023:RJ-JD:26470] (2 of 5) [CRLR-685/2003]

Rathore, Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the

petitioner in the competent court to the effect that on 25.10.1986

he took a sample of suspected adulterated milk from accused

Madan Lal from motorcycle bearing registration No.RJH 5296 near

Hindustan Petroleum Chauraha following due procedure and sent

the same for analysis to Public Analyst, Udaipur, who gave a

report (Ex.P/7) finding the same to be adulterated. Thus, after

obtaining prosecution sanction, a complaint was submitted against

the petitioner in the competent court for the offence under Section

7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

3. The learned trial court after summoning the accused through

warrant framed charge against him for the above offence and

upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. After full-

fledged trial the petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide the

impugned judgment dated 01.05.2000 and the appeal preferred

against the aforesaid judgment also came to be dismissed vide

judgment dated 31.07.2003. 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 matter pertains to the year 1986.

The petitioner was aged 36 years at that time and presently he is

around 73 years of age. He was not having any criminal

antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against

[2023:RJ-JD:26470] (3 of 5) [CRLR-685/2003]

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

the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 34 years. He has remained in custody

for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. A long

time has already lapsed and no fruitful purpose would be served

by sending the petitioner to jail at this stage. 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 has remained

behind the bars for some time 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

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 1986. The petitioner was 36 years of age at that time

and he has now turned 73. Trial in the present case commenced

[2023:RJ-JD:26470] (4 of 5) [CRLR-685/2003]

in the year 1989 and it took 11 years for it to conclude. It took 3

more years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, the instant

revision petition is pending before this court for last 20 years. 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 34 years and has been in the

corridors of the court for this prolonged period. 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

remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the

judgment in appeal. 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 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:26470] (5 of 5) [CRLR-685/2003]

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 01.05.2000

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in

Criminal Regular Case No.281/1989 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 31.07.2003 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.14/2003

(67/2001) 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 on bail.

He need not surrender. His 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 121-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)