Bal Kishan vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27551)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6232 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27551]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1053/2003

Bal Kishan S/o Ram Chander, by caste Sindhi, owner of M/s Raju Sweet House, Subhash Marg, Keshrisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 06.11.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur,

District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.4/2003, whereby

the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 30.07.1999 passed by learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, District Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.402/1997; whereby the

petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16

(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment of one year alongwith a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo

simple imprisonment of three months.

[2023:RJ-JD:27551] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1053/2003]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Mr. Kewalkrishna

Sharma, Food Inspector, went to Raju Sweet House, Subhash

Market, Kesrisinghpur on 27.04.1997 at 09.50 a.m. and took

sample of the Khoya kept for sale as per the prescribed procedure

and sent the same for analysis to the Public Analyst, Sri

Ganganagar, from where a report was received opining that the

sample was adulterated, upon which, prosecution sanction was

obtained and a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the

competent court on 20.09.1997.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner

for the above offence under Section 7/16 (1)(a) of the Prevention

of Food Adulteration and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced

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

prove the offences, examined as many as 4 witnesses and

exhibited 20 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 offences under Section 7/16 (1)(a) of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated

30.07.1999. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he

preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate

court vide judgment dated 06.11.2003 affirming the judgment

[2023:RJ-JD:27551] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1053/2003]

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 1997. The petitioner was a petty shopkeeper

and he was selling Khoya, which he had purchased from other

shopkeeper. 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. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26

years. He has remained incarcerated for some time after passing

of the judgment in appeal. No fruitful purpose would be served by

sending the petitioner back to jail after lapse of such a long time.

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 in the present case.

[2023:RJ-JD:27551] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1053/2003]

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 1997. 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 26 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. He is on bail for a pretty long period and is

living peacefully as no report contrary to that has been received

by this court, thus, apparently he has been reformed. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27551] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1053/2003]

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 30.07.1999

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri

Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case

No.402/1997 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 06.11.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur,

District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal appeal No.4/2003 are affirmed

but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court

for the offence under Section 7/16 (1) (a) 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J 18-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)