Ratan Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:30094)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6880 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30094]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1120/2003

Ratan Lal S/o Mohan Lal, by caste Jat, resident of Sinhapur, Tehsil Kapasan, District Chittorgarh

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/09/2023

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 04.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.96/2001,

whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated

18.05.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Chittorgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.137/1993 convicting the

petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 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 rigorous imprisonment of

one month.

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 18.07.1992 at

about 07.30 a.m., Mr. Pyara Singh, Food Inspector, Kumbhanagar,

[2023:RJ-JD:30094] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1120/2003]

Chittorgarh collected a sample of milk from the accused Ratanlal,

who was selling the same on a cycle, and after following the

prescribed procedure, sent the same for analysis to Public Analyst,

Udaipur, from where a report (Ex.P/9) was received opining that

the sample of milk was found adulterated, upon which, after

obtaining prosecution sanction, a complaint was submitted against

the petitioner in the competent court.

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 as many as 4 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. No evidence

was adduced from the 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 for the offence under

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

judgment dated 18.05.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of

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

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 04.12.2003. 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

[2023:RJ-JD:30094] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1120/2003]

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 1992. The petitioner has already suffered

agony of protracted trial of 30 years. He has remained in custody

for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. 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. No fruitful

purpose would be served by sending him back 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.

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 an 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:30094] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1120/2003]

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

it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1992

and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 8 years to

culminate. Thereafter, this revision petition 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 30 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 some days after passing of the

judgment in appeal. 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:30094] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1120/2003]

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2001

passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in

Criminal Regular Case No.137/1993 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 04.12.2003 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.96/2001

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 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 30-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)