Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hitesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8248) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8248] (1 of 5) [CRLR-805/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 805/2021
Hitesh Kumar S/o Tulsidas B/c Sindhi, aged about 33 years, R/o
SD 32, New Housing Board through M/s Jamna Products, Opp.
ESI Hospital, Jodhpur Road, Pali. (Presently in District Jail Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Singh
Mr. Rajendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/02/2024
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 24.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No.88/2021, whereby the learned
appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed
by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal
Case No.1790/2014 convicting the petitioner for the offence under
Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and
sentencing him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment
alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 03.03.2011
the Food Inspector Ratan Singh Deora visited the firm of the
petitioner i.e. M/s. Jamna Products situated opposite ISI Hospital,
[2024:RJ-JD:8248] (2 of 5) [CRLR-805/2021]
Pali. The petitioner was informed about the inspection of the firm,
however, he did not show any licence. Upon a suspicion that the
chilli powder kept in the premises is adulterated, sample of the
same was taken after following due procedure and the same was
found adulterated after examination, Upon which, a complaint was
presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution
sanction.
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 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
offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act vide judgment dated 16.07.2019. Aggrieved by the judgment
of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the
learned appellate court vide judgment dated 24.09.2021. 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
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
[2024:RJ-JD:8248] (3 of 5) [CRLR-805/2021]
pertains to the year 2011. The petitioner was 25 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 20
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one
month out of total sentence of six months' S.I. 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 it was the first criminal case registered against 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.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 2011
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
25 years at that time and at present he is around 38 years of age.
The trial took 1 year to culminate and it took further 2 years in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision is pending before
[2024:RJ-JD:8248] (4 of 5) [CRLR-805/2021]
this court for last 3 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 20
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 one
month out of total sentence of six months' S.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.
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2019
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in
Criminal Case No.1790/2014 as well as the judgment in appeal
dated 24.09.2021 passed by the learned Session Judge, Pali in
Criminal Appeal No.88/2021 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section
[2024:RJ-JD:8248] (5 of 5) [CRLR-805/2021]
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 fine
imposed by the trial court is maintained. Three months' time is
granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple
imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the
petitioner shall be adjusted. 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, if received, be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
168-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
