Gulam Rasul vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5804)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5622 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5622 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gulam Rasul vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5804) on 29 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:5804]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 529/2005

Gulam Rasul S/o Yakub, R/o Shop No.40, New Cloth Market,
Chittorgarh
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

29/01/2025

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section

397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has

challenged the judgment dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chittorgarh in criminal

case No.40/2000 whereby he has been convicted for the offence

under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954 and the judgment dated 02.07.2005 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in criminal appeal no.

71/2003 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been

affirmed. The learned trial court vide order dated 18.11.2003 has

sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo three months' S.I

and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

further undergo ten days' S.I.

As per prosecution, on 20.12.1986, the Food Inspector,

Chittorgarh has taken samples of chilli powder from the shop of

[2025:RJ-JD:5804] (2 of 4) [CRLR-529/2005]

the petitioner who is vendor of food grains and condiments. The

samples were sent for examination to the Public Analyst,

Chittorgarh after duly following the procedure provided under the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The public Analyst in its

report has found the samples of chilli powder to be 'Adulterated'.

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 2 witnesses and certain

documents were also exhibited.

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 1986. There is no positive evidence available on record

regarding mixing of the artificial colour in the red chilli powder 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 red chilli powder was

adulterated.

It was also submitted that the sentence awarded to the

present petitioner has already been suspended by this Court vide

order dated 12.07.2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative

submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1986 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:5804] (3 of 4) [CRLR-529/2005]

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.

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.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of

the case.

This Court finds concurrent finding of fact with regard to

petitioner being guilty of mixing coloring agent in the red chilli

powder. This Court finds that the petitioner is a vendor of food

grains and condiments and therefore there is no reason available

with it to disbelieve the report of the Public Analyst, wherein the

samples drawn from the chilli powder were found to be

'Adulterated'. However, in the opinion of this Court since the

incident relates to the year 1986 and the petitioner has suffered

the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 39 years

coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in

custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the

trial court for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period already

undergone while directing him to deposit the fine amount if not

already deposited.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner's sentence

[2025:RJ-JD:5804] (4 of 4) [CRLR-529/2005]

for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954 is hereby reduced to the period already

undergone.