Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hanumansingh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:15984) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:15984]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 486/2004
Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh, R/o Sitli, P.S. Kalyanpur,
District Barmer
[Lodged in Sub Jail, Balotra]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
26/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 22.07.2004 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Criminal Appeal No.03/2003 whereby the
learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction
and sentence vide judgment dated 28.08.2003 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case
No.429/1998 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec. 7(1) R/w 6 months' SI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) fine, 1 months' SI
of the Prevention
of Food
Adulteration Act
Rule 50(1) of the 15 days' SI Rs.100/- and in default of payment of
Prevention of fine, 7 days' SI
Food Adulteration
Act
[2025:RJ-JD:15984] (2 of 4) [CRLR-486/2004]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period
spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original imprisonment.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 08.09.1998,
complainant Laxmi Chand Jain (PW/1) found the accused-petitioner
Hanuman Singh selling milk in Kalyanpur. The complainant purchased a
sample of 7.5 ml of milk @ Rs.3 per litre from the accused-petitioner. As
per the report of Public Analyst, the milk was found to be adulterated
Consequently, a complaint was filed against the accused under Section
7(1) R/w Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
and Rule 50(1) of the said Act. During the course of trial, the
prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and submitted certain
documents in support of their case. The accused-petitioner was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations
against him and claimed trial.
4. The learned trial court, after hearing the final arguments of both
sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Section
7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and Rule 50(1) of the said Act of IPC vide order dated
28.08.2003. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and
sentence before learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby the appellate
court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 22.07.2004.
5. Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit, representing the petitioner,
at the outset submits that he does not dispute the finding of guilt and
the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and upheld
by the learned appellate court, but at the same time, he implores that
the incident took place in the year 1998. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for about 13 days. No other case has been
[2025:RJ-JD:15984] (3 of 4) [CRLR-486/2004]
reported against him. He hails from a very poor family and belongs to
the weaker section of the society. The accused-petitioner was aged
about 44 years in 1998 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 71 years at present and has been facing trial
since the year 1998 and he has languished in jail for some time,
therefore, a lenient view may be taken in reducing his sentence.
6. Learned public prosecutor though opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner but does not refute the fact that the
petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 13 days and except
the present one, no other case has been registered against him.
7. 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, this
court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.
8. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, the petitioner
remained in jail for some time. Thus, in the light of the judgments
passed 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 circumstances of the case, age of the
petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that the case is pending
since long time for which the petitioner has suffered some time
incarceration and the maximum sentence imposed upon him is one year
as well as the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go
through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the
sentence to the term of imprisonment that the petitioner has already
undergone till date.
[2025:RJ-JD:15984] (4 of 4) [CRLR-486/2004]
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.08.2003 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case
No.429/1998 and the judgment dated 22.07.2004 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Criminal Appeal No.03/2003 are
affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial
Court 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 imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The
amount of fine imposed by the trial court, if not already deposited by
the petitioner, then two months' time is granted to the petitioner to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of
fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled.
10. The revision petition is allowed in part.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
3-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
