Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Gopal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:42198) on 5 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2023:RJ-JD:42198]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 374/2013
Jai Gopal S/o Shri Sher Singh, by caste Arora, R/o Gali No.15,
Abohar District Fazilka (Punjab)
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Chawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
05/12/2023
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the
judgment dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal
No.289/2012, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
judgment dated 29.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case
No.404/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and
sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment
alongwith a fine of Rs.1,200/- and in default of payment of fine,
further to undergo fifteen days' SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 27.03.1995
the Food Inspector Sarwan Singh Barad inspected Kake Da Hotel
[2023:RJ-JD:42198] (2 of 5) [CRLR-374/2013]
at Bus Stand Gadarkheda where PW.2 Keval Krishan (servant at
the hotel) was present and food licence for the year 1995 was not
found. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 600 gms. wheat flour on
payment of Rs.3/- to PW.2 Keval Krishan. Thereafter, at the same
time, a notice on form No.6 was given to PW.2 Keval Krishan
regarding sample collection of wheat flour. After following due
procedure, the samples were tested and the same were found to
be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against
the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 7/16 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 the witnesses and exhibited various
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. Then, after
hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and upon meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated
29.06.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 17.06.2013. 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
[2023:RJ-JD:42198] (3 of 5) [CRLR-374/2013]
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 petitioner was 47 years of age at
that time. 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.
The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 28
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of
seven days out of total sentence of one year S.I. 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. It was the first criminal
case registered against him 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 case pertains to the year 1995
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
47 years at that time and at present he is around 75 years of age.
[2023:RJ-JD:42198] (4 of 5) [CRLR-374/2013]
The trial took 13 years to culminate and it took further one year in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision is pending before
this court for last 10 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 24
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 a period of seven
days out of total sentence of one year S.I. 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 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 29.06.2012
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.404/1999 as well as the
judgment in appeal dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned
[2023:RJ-JD:42198] (5 of 5) [CRLR-374/2013]
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal
No.289/2012 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded
to the petitioner 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 fine imposed by the
trial court is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo fifteen days' S.I. 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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
282-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
