Bhanwer Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27057)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6241 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27057]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1126/2002

Bhanwar Lal son of Sukh Ram, by caste Meghwal, resident of Tehsil Kohla, District Hanumangarh

----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

23/08/2023

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 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.80/1999, whereby the

learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 04.12.1999

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in

Criminal Regular Case No.320/1996 convicting the petitioner for

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

Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo simple

imprisonment of 6 months alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in

default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple

imprisonment of 15 days.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that Mr. Rajendra

Prasad, Food Inspector, PHC, Sangaria submitted a complaint in

[2023:RJ-JD:27057] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1126/2002]

the competent court to the effect that on 19.12.1993 he went for

inspection to Nai Aabadi, Hanumangarh Town and stopped one

Bhanwar Lal, who was carrying milk for sale on a motorcycle. He

did not have any licence to sell food article. On suspicion, the

Food Inspector took sample of the milk following the due

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

Ganganagar, who gave a report with a finding that the sample of

cow milk was adulterated. Upon this, prosecution sanction was

obtained and the complaint was filed against the petitioner.

3. The learned trial court summoned the accused and after

hearing the arguments on charge, framed charge against the

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

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by

him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the

prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 5

witnesses and exhibited 19 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 and sentenced the petitioner for the

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

Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 04.12.1999. Aggrieved by

the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was

[2023:RJ-JD:27057] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1126/2002]

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

12.12.2002. 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 1993. The petitioner was 29 years of age at

that time. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct

except the impugned judgment. He has already suffered agony of

protracted trial of 27 years. The petitioner has 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 petitioner may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

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

defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact

that the petitioner is an old aged person and 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

[2023:RJ-JD:27057] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1126/2002]

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 case pertains to the year 1993

and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged

29 years at that time and at present he is around 60 years of age.

The trial took 3 years to culminate and it took further 3 years in

decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision petition is pending

before this court for last 21 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 27 years and has been in the corridors of the court for

this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some days

after passing of the judgment in appeal. He is living peacefully on

bail for last more than two 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. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, age of petitioner, his status in the

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

[2023:RJ-JD:27057] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1126/2002]

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 04.12.1999

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in

Criminal Regular Case No.320/1996 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 12.12.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.80/1999 are affirmed but the

quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner 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, shall stand disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 6-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)