Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Birbal Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8770) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8770]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 597/2005
Birbal Ram S/o Shri Dhuda Ram, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Samori Dhani,
Palina, Tehsil Phaldoi, District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
12/02/2025
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 11.07.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.03/2005, whereby
the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal against the
judgment dated 10.02.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in Criminal Case No.126/1998
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to
undergo six months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one month's S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 16.12.1997 at
about 11 O'clock Food Inspector P.C. Harsh took samples of milk
[2025:RJ-JD:8770] (2 of 5) [CRLR-597/2005]
from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the
samples were sent for examination and the same were found to
be adulterated.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed the 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 three 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 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
vide judgment dated 10.02.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by
the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.07.2005.
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
pertains to the year 1997. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8770] (3 of 5) [CRLR-597/2005]
agony of protracted trial of 28 years. The petitioner has remained
in custody for a period of seventeen days 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 the petitioner is an old aged person. 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 partly allowed 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 1997
and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 7 years to
culminate and it took further 1 year in decision of the appeal.
Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 20
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 28 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
[2025:RJ-JD:8770] (4 of 5) [CRLR-597/2005]
be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He
remained incarcerated for a period of seventeen 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 10.02.2005
passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in
Criminal Case No.126/1998 as well as the judgment in appeal
dated 11.07.2005 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.03/2005 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 amount is hereby maintained. Two months' time is
granted to deposit the fine before the trial court, if any amount has
been deposited by the petitioner then the same shall be adjusted. In
[2025:RJ-JD:8770] (5 of 5) [CRLR-597/2005]
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 be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
8-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
