Mangilal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:37193)
2023 Latest Caselaw 8895 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37193]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 481/2003

Mangilal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, B/c Kumhar, R/o Lasmanpura, Gram Panchayat, Majawada Post Majawada, Via--Dabok, District Udaipur.

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----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 28.05.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge,

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

No.5/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the

judgment dated 16.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in Regular

Criminal Case No.360/1996 convicting the petitioner for the

offence under Sections 7(V) Rule 50(i) & 7(1) R/w 16 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to

undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1

month's SI.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193] (2 of 5) [CRLR-481/2003]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 25.03.1996

the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner situated in

Village Laxmanpura, Panchayat Majavada, District Udaipur, where

the petitioner was selling food articles. The petitioner was

informed about the inspection of the shop, however, he did not

show any licence. Upon a suspicion that the mustard oil kept in

the shop is adulterated, sample of the same was taken following

due procedure. The same was found adulterated in testing, Upon

which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner after

obtaining prosecution sanction.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner

for the offences under Section 7(V), Rule 50(i) and Section 7(1)

R/w 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 offences under Section 7(V) Rule 50(i) and

Section 7(1) R/w 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

vide judgment dated 16.03.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of

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

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 28.05.2003. Hence,

this revision petition is filed before this court.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193] (3 of 5) [CRLR-481/2003]

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 1996. The petitioner was 30 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 27

years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 28

days out of total sentence of six months RI. 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 the 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193] (4 of 5) [CRLR-481/2003]

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1996

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

30 years at that time and at present he is around 57 years of age.

The trial took 2 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 27

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 28 days

out of total sentence of six months R.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.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193] (5 of 5) [CRLR-481/2003]

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2001

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli,

District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.360/1996 as well as

the judgment in appeal dated 28.05.2003 passed by the learned

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

Criminal appeal No.5/2001 are affirmed but the quantum of

sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Sections

7(V) Rule 50(i) & 7(1) R/w 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 24-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)