Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indraj vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:17138) on 2 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:17138] (1 of 5) [CRLR-991/2007]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 991/2007
Indraj S/o Shri Ladhu Ram, B/c Jat & R/o 42 N.P., Tehsil Raisingh
Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently lodged in Central Jail,
Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/04/2025
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 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal appeal No.22/2006,
whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 31.03.2006
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raisingh Nagar, in Criminal Original Case No.241/2002 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.2000/- and in
default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's SI.
[2025:RJ-JD:17138] (2 of 5) [CRLR-991/2007]
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 13.03.2002
complainant Food Inspector inspected the drums containing milk
which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon
a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs.6 to the
petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was
given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of milk. After
following due procedure, the samples were tested and the same
were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was
presented against the petitioner.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the offences 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
offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act vide judgment dated 31.03.2006. Aggrieved by the judgment
of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the
learned appellate court vide judgment dated 07.09.2007. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:17138] (3 of 5) [CRLR-991/2007]
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 2002. The petitioner was 26 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 23
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 20
days out of total sentence of six months SI. 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 is an old 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.
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 2002
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
[2025:RJ-JD:17138] (4 of 5) [CRLR-991/2007]
26 years at that time and at present he is around 49 years of age.
The trial took 4 years to culminate and it took further 1 year in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before
this court for last 18 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 23
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 20 days
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 31.03.2006
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Raisingh Nagar in Cr. Original Case No.241/2002 as well as the
[2025:RJ-JD:17138] (5 of 5) [CRLR-991/2007]
judgment in appeal dated 07.09.2007 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Criminal appeal
No.22/2006 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 fine imposed by the
trial court is maintained. Two 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
25-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
