Rajan Rathi vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13163)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8257 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8257 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajan Rathi vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:13163) on 5 March, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:13163]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 590/2006

Rajan Rathi S/o Ramkaran Rathi, resident of Pungalpara, District
Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Samyak Dalal (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

05/03/2025

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section

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

challenged the order/judgment dated 05.03.1999 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No.48/94

whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 2AA

and 7(1)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and

sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and

in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I.

and the order/judgment dated 05.07.2006 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal no. 02/2004 whereby

the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.

As per prosecution, on 18.03.1994, the Food Inspector

collected chilli powder samples from the co-accused Narendra

Mehta who runs a provision store in Sirohi. The same were sent

for examination to the Public Analyst, Jodhpur after duly following

[2025:RJ-JD:13163] (2 of 4) [CRLR-590/2006]

the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Act, 1954. The Public Analyst in its report found that the chilli

powder samples to be 'Adulterated'. The accused- Narendra

divulged an information that the said chilli powder was purchased

by him from M/s R.K. Industries, Bhadwasia Road, Mahamandir,

Jodhpur through bill number 471 dated 20.07.1992. The present

petitioner was the proprietor of M/s R.K. Industries, Bhadwasia

Road, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the

petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 2AA and

7(1)/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During

the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 4

witnesses and 27 documents were also exhibited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentence awarded to the petitioner has already been suspended

by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2006 passed in S.B. Cr. Misc.

(Suspension of Sentence) Application No.184/2006.

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 1994. There is no positive evidence regarding adulterating

the chilli powder by the petitioner and in absence thereof, only on

the basis of the report of Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the

petitioner had committed the alleged crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative

submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1994 and the

petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded

to him, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the

[2025:RJ-JD:13163] (3 of 4) [CRLR-590/2006]

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by

him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

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 the revisional jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of

the case.

This Court finds that there is concurrent finding of fact with

regard to petitioner being guilty of adulterating the chilli powder.

This Court also finds that the petitioner was a condiment supplier

and therefore, there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the

report of the Public Analyst, wherein the samples of chilli powder

taken by the Food Inspector from the co-accused which were

supplied to him by the present petitioner were, found to be

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

incident relates to the year 1994 and the petitioner has suffered

the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 30 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 offences under Sections 2AA and 7(1)/16 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period

[2025:RJ-JD:13163] (4 of 4) [CRLR-590/2006]

already undergone by the petitioner 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, his sentence for the

offences under Sections 2AA and 7(1)/16 of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.