Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nanu vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:36267) on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:36267]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 613/2008
Nanu S/o Gopi, R/o Mohanpura, Police Station Hamirgarh,
District Bhilwara.
(Lodged at District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/08/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
29.07.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is alive.
The same be taken on record.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter to be
referred as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.160/2006,
whereby the said appeal was allowed and judgment dated
27.10.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhilwara (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court')
in Criminal Regular Case No.442/2003 was set aside.
2.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 26.06.2008 passed by the learned appellate court
as below :-
[2025:RJ-JD:36267] (2 of 4) [CRLR-613/2008]
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
7/16 of 1 Year's Rigorous ₹5000/- 3 Months' Rigorous
Prevention of Food Imprisonment Imprisonment
Adulteration Act
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that
complainant - Bhagwan Chandra Sharma, the then Food
Inspector, field a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhilwara alleging therein that the petitioner was
engaged in selling milk without having valid license, therefore, on
03.04.1996 at about 08:30 AM, the complainant, after disclosing
his identity, took a 750 ml. sample of milk from the petitioner and
gave him Form No.6 under the provisions of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act. It was alleged that the said sample was sent for
analysis to the Public Analyst, Bhilwara, who submitted his
analysis report on 27.01.1996 stating that the milk was
adulterated. Thereafter, the said complaint was filed for the
offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
3.1. After examining the prosecution witnesses, recording
statement of petitioner under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and upon
completion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted for the offence
under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the
learned trial court vide judgment dated 27.10.2006, which was set
aside by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
26.06.2008 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the
offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
[2025:RJ-JD:36267] (3 of 4) [CRLR-613/2008]
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.07.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.168/2008.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also 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 petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1996 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
7.1. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases 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) :
"84. ... ... ... 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36267] (4 of 4) [CRLR-613/2008]
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) :
"4. ... ... ... 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..."
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.20
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
