Shere Khan vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:37187)
2023 Latest Caselaw 8894 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37187]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2003

Shere Khan S/o Sh. Dane Khan, B/c Mohammedan, R/o Dhani Harbans Singh, Chak 2 ML Nathawali, Tehsil & District Sriganganagar.

                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Pradeep Shah
                                 Mr. CS Rathore
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                  Judgment

01/11/2023

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 19.08.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Criminal

appeal No.75/2003, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed

the judgment dated 29.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Regular Criminal Case

No.407/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under

Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and

sentencing him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment

alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo 2 months' SI.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 10.03.1992

[2023:RJ-JD:37187] (2 of 5) [CRLR-793/2003]

the Food Inspector Ramswaroop inspected two tanks containing

cow milk which were being carried by the petitioner on his

motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on

payment of Rs.4 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a

notice on form No.6 was given to the petitioner regarding sample

collection of milk. 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 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 of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 29.08.2001. Aggrieved by

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

dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

19.08.2003. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:37187] (3 of 5) [CRLR-793/2003]

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 1992. The petitioner was 32 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 31

years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one

month out of total sentence of six months 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 1992

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

32 years at that time and at present he is around 63 years of age.

[2023:RJ-JD:37187] (4 of 5) [CRLR-793/2003]

The trial took 6 years to culminate and it took further 2 years in

decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal 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 31

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 one

month out of total sentence of six months 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 29.08.2001

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.407/1999 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 19.08.2003 passed by the learned

[2023:RJ-JD:37187] (5 of 5) [CRLR-793/2003]

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

Sriganganagar in Criminal appeal No.75/2003 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 also waived. 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 29-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)