Rajasthan High Court
Trilok Chand vs State on 3 April, 2024
Author: Vinod Kumar Bharwani
Bench: Vinod Kumar Bharwani
[2024:RJ-JP:14961]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 237/2003
Trilok Chand son of Parasmal Resident of Village Jethana Police Station
Mangaliawas District Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Hakam Ali, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment
Reserved on :::: 27 th March, 2024
Pronounced on :::: 03rd April, 2024.
***
Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/
petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.18.02.2003 passed by
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Ajmer, in Criminal Regular
Appeal No.103/2002 (21/2002), whereby the appeal filed by petitioner
has been dismissed & the judgment dt.19.06.2002 passed by Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, Ajmer, in Criminal Case
No.216/2000, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 16 (1) (A) (i) & 16
(1)(A) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 & sentenced
to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- & in
default thereof, to further undergo one month additional simple
imprisonment, has been affirmed.
[2024:RJ-JP:14961] (2 of 4) [CRLR-237/2003]
As per prosecution story, Shiv Kumar Gupta, Food Inspector
submitted a complaint dt.22.08.2000 against the petitioner before the
competent Court to the effect that on 15.12.1999 he took a sample of
suspected adulterated groundnut oil from the alleged shop of petitioner,
following due procedure and sent the same for analysis to the FSL, who
gave a report, finding the same to be "adulterated". The petitioner was
thereafter, prosecuted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as
above.
Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-
petitioner are that there is no positive evidence or any independent
witness on record indicating that the petitioner is guilty of committing
the alleged crime, hence, the conviction cannot be recorded solely on
the testimony of highly interested witnesses. The first report of Public
Analyst is not maintainable after report of FSL. The sentence, so
awarded to petitioner was, however, suspended by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide its order dt.26.02.2003. The petitioner deserves some
leniency as he had already suffered the ordeal of trial since year 2000
i.e. for a period of 24 years. Last submission is that he shall not assail
the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court.
Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to
petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call
for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length.
Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.
[2024:RJ-JP:14961] (3 of 4) [CRLR-237/2003]
Since the present 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 ld. 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.
So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,
it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to
the year 1999. The petitioner was aged around 46 years at the time of
incident and presently he has turned about 71 years old. The petitioner
has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a
period of more than 23 years and has been in the corridors of the Court
for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time after
passing of the judgment in appeal, hence, the case of the petitioner
deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial
pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9SCC 678
and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the age of the
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial
hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the
view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon
the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case &
considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long
pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as
keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is
[2024:RJ-JP:14961] (4 of 4) [CRLR-237/2003]
partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for
the alleged offences. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced
to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
Record be sent to the trial Court.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
ASHOK/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
