Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Swaroopa Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:7390) on 5 February, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:7390]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2007
Swaroopa Ram S/o Tulsi Ram, R/o Pilwa, Tehsi Phalodi, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D.L.R. Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
05/02/2025
1. By way of filing the present revision petition under Section
397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner-accused
has challenged the order dated 26.09.2005 in Cr. Original Case
No.500/1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Phalodi, District Jodhpur whereby he has been
convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to six months simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment and
the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the learned Add. Sessions
Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.16/2005
whereby the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.
2. As per prosecution, on 11.03.1997 the samples of milk were
taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor in the presence of
the witnesses Jagdish Narayan and Gusai Lal. The same were sent
[2025:RJ-JD:7390] (2 of 4) [CRLR-115/2007]
for examination to the Public Analyst after duly following the
procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. The Public Analyst in its report has found the milk samples
to be 'Adulterated'.
3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the
petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7/16 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During the course
of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses and
also exhibited 17 documents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He further
submitted that the incident in the present case occurred in the
year 1997. There is no positive evidence regarding adulterating of
the milk by the petitioner and in the absence thereof, only on the
basis of the report of Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the
petitioner had committed the alleged crime or the milk was
adulterated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended
by this Court, vide order dated 22.02.2007 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail
(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.15/2017.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative
submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1997 and the
petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded
to him, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the
petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
[2025:RJ-JD:7390] (3 of 4) [CRLR-115/2007]
Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka:
2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of
Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582.
7. Per Contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that the
learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against
the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgments/orders and therefore, the same do not call for any
interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
record of the case.
9. This Court finds that the petitioner was a milk vendor and
there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the report of the
Public Analyst, wherein the sample of milk drawn from the
petitioner was found to be 'Adulterated'. However, in the opinion of
this Court, since the incident relates to the year 1997 and the
petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial
for about 27 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner has
spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court for the offence
under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction, his sentence for the
offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by
[2025:RJ-JD:7390] (4 of 4) [CRLR-115/2007]
him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
11. All pending applications (if any) stand disposed of.
12. The record of the trial Court as well as appellate Court be
sent back forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
24-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
