Gafoor Khan vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:31913)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7737 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31913]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 492/2002

Gafoor Khan S/o Shri Jamal Khan, B/c Muslim, Aged 39 years, R/o Village Mawa, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (At present Central Jail Jaisalmer)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. LD Khatri Mr. Sharwan KUmar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

27/09/2023

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2002 passed in Cr. Appeal

No.38/2000 by learned District & Session Judge, Jaisalmer

(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the

appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the

judgment dated 03.10.2000 passed in Cr. Original Case

No.18/1994 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran

(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned

trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16

of Prevention of Food Adulteration, 1954 (hereinafter shall be

referred as "the Act of 1954") and sentenced him to undergo six

months simple imprisonment and also imposed a fine of

Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo one

month simple imprisonment.

[2023:RJ-JD:31913] (2 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002]

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.1994, complainant

Bhanwarlal Purohit, Food Inspector, Jaisalmer submitted a

complaint to the effect that on 23.09.1993 at about 6:00 AM in

the morning, during checking at Nachana Chouraha, he caught the

petitioner, who was going to sell cow milk to public without any

food licence. The petitioner disclosed his name as Gafoor Khan.

The complainant took sample of 750 ML milk from the petitioner

and equally filled in three bottles and after completion of all the

formalities, sealed these three bottles and sent for testing. In the

report, the milk was found adulterated.

The accused-petitioner appeared before the trial court and

the trial court recorded the statement of complainant - Bhanwarlal

Purohit as PW-1 before framing of charge. Thereafter, charge for

offence under Section 7/16 of Act of 1954 was framed. The

petitioner denied the charge and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 3

witnesses. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under

section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 03.10.2000 convicted and sentenced

the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.10.2000,

passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred by the

petitioner before the learned appellate court, which came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2002. Hence this revision

petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-

petitioner.

[2023:RJ-JD:31913] (3 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002]

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner

submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but

since the occurrence is related to the year 1993 and out of total

sentence of six months S.I., the accused petitioner has already

served ten days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the

sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16

of the Act of 1954 may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-

petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to

interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor

any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as

defence and the judgments passed by the courts below regarding

conviction of the accused-petitioner.

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1993 and

the petitioner has so far undergone a period of ten days in custody

out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the agony

and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all

circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained

behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the

sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 7/16

of the Act of 1954 is reduced from six months to the period already

undergone by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section

7/16 of the Act of 1954, the sentence awarded to him is hereby

[2023:RJ-JD:31913] (4 of 4) [CRLR-492/2002]

reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed

by the trial court has already been deposited by the petitioner. The

petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be

sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 10-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)