Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Noor Mohammad vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:10120) on 19 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:10120]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 98/2006
Noor Mohammad S/o Mamu Kha R/o Barkat Colony, Phalodi,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DLR Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
19/02/2025
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 31.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004,
whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated
30.06.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Phalodi in Criminal Main Case No.501/1997 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.1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 11.03.1997
the Food Inspector P.C. Harsh found the petitioner selling milk at
Barkat Colony. He inspected the milk filled in iron containers and
[2025:RJ-JD:10120] (2 of 5) [CRLR-98/2006]
asked the petitioner about the licence for year 1997 for selling the
milk which was not found with the petitioner. Upon suspicion, the
food inspector collected 750 ml. milk from the petitioner for
testing on payment of Rs.5.25/- 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 sample was tested and the same was found to be adulterated.
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(1)(A)(1) 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 two witnesses and exhibited various
documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the
prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then,
after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and upon meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1)(A)
(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment
dated 30.06.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 31.01.2006. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:10120] (3 of 5) [CRLR-98/2006]
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. The petitioner was 21 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 28
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of
about fifteen 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 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 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 1997
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
about 21 years at that time and at present he is around 49 years
[2025:RJ-JD:10120] (4 of 5) [CRLR-98/2006]
of age. The trial took 7 years to culminate and it took further 2
years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision is pending
before this court for last 19 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 be indulged in any other
criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for a
period of about fifteen 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 30.06.2004
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi
in Criminal Main Case No.501/1997 as well as the judgment in
appeal dated 31.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional District
[2025:RJ-JD:10120] (5 of 5) [CRLR-98/2006]
& Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004 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
hereby waived. 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 of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
11-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
