Bahadar Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:28174)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6233 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28174]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 755/2003

Bahadar Ram S/o Chet Ram, by caste Swami, R/o Chak-15, S.G.R., Post Sardarpura Bika, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

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 14.08.2003

passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.67/2003,

whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2000 passed by

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in

Criminal Regular Case No.496/1997; whereby the petitioner has

been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence convicted Section 18(c)/27(b)(ii) of Simple imprisonment of 1 year alongwith a the Drugs and Cosmetics fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment Act of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months Section 18(a)/28 of the Simple imprisonment of 6 months Drugs and Cosmetics Act alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month

[2023:RJ-JD:28174] (2 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the complainant

Drug Inspector, Headquarter Sri Ganganagar submitted a

complaint in the competent court against the petitioner Bahadar

Ram to the effect that in compliance of the letter No.97/10480-83

dated 11.06.1997 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer,

Sri Ganganagar regarding unauthorized medical practitioners, Mr.

Ashok Mittal, Drug Inspector, Dr. Manju Bhargawa, Medical Officer,

PHC, Suratgarh, Mr. Harlal, ASI, PS Suratgarh and Mr. Vasudev

Bhatia, Class IV employee inspected the clinic of the petitioner

situated at Village 15-S.G.R. and found that he was keeping

various types of medicines in his clinic. He introduced himself as

doctor at the time of inspection, but could not produce either any

licence for sell, stock or distribution of medicines or any certificate

for medical practice. The medicines were seized and documents

were prepared. Letters were sent to the accused asking for

producing licence, but he refused to received those letters. Then

after obtaining prosecution sanction, the aforesaid complaint was

filed.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and framed charges

against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 18(c), 18(a),

27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 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 5 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The

[2023:RJ-JD:28174] (3 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003]

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 produced from

defence side. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor

and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous

appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and

sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above vide

judgment dated 22.02.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of

conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 14.08.2003 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 1997. The petitioner was 29 years of age at

that time. He has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 26

years. He has remained in custody for around 15 days after

passing of the judgment in appeal. No fruitful purpose would be

served by sending him to jail after lapse of such a long period.

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:28174] (4 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003]

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

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

petitioner has remained behind the bars for some.

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.

He was 29 years of age at the time of the incident and presently

he is 55 years old. He remained incarcerated for around 15 days.

He is living peacefully for last more than two and half decades as

no report contrary to that has been received. 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:28174] (5 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003]

State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of

appellant, 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 for each count is reduced to the one

already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2000

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Case No.496/1997 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.67/2003 are affirmed but the

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each

count, i.e. Section 18(c)/27(b)(ii) and 18(a)/28 of the Drugs and

Cosmetics 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. All pending

applications are disposed of.

10. The record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 30-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)