Satyanarain vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32238)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7734 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7734 Raj
Judgement Date : 27 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Satyanarain vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32238) on 27 September, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:32238]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 853/2003

Satyanarain s/o Kanhaiyalal, r/o Begun, Tehsil Begun, District
Chittorgarh.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Shubhankar Joshi.
For Respondent(s)          :    Ms.Anita Gehlot, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

27/09/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

5.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Chittorgarh in Cr.Appeal No.48/2000 whereby the judgment dated

1.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Begun, District Chittorgarh in Cr.Original Case No.141/1992

(88/1988) was upheld and the petitioner was convicted for the

offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and was

sentenced to 6 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

one month's simple imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 19.9.2003 passed in

[2023:RJ-JD:32238] (2 of 3) [CRLR-853/2003]

S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application

No.229/2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1988. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of

sentences already undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1986 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra)

[2023:RJ-JD:32238] (3 of 3) [CRLR-853/2003]

"... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food

Adulteration Act, the sentences awarded to him are reduced to the

period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He

need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.