Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tapan Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16047) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16047]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 941/2005
Tapan Kumar S/o Anand Rai, By Caste Hindu, Resident of
Kalandri, Police Station Kalandari, District Sirohi.
(Lodged in District Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
26/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.96/2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the
appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed in Regular Cr. Case
No.110/2000 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, by which
the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for
the offences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter
shall be referred to as 'the Act'), details of which are as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Sec.27(B)(II) of The 1 years S.I. Rs.5,000/- 5 months' S.I.
Act.
Sec.28 of The Act ---- Rs.500/- 1 month's S.I.
Sec.22(3) of The Act ------ Rs.500/ 1 month's S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:16047] (2 of 4) [CRLR-941/2005]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Manoj Kumar
Togra, Drug Inspector, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirohi to the effect that on 13.08.1998, upon receiving
an information, he inspected the dispensary run by the petitioner
and found that the present petitioner was not a registered medical
practitioner and he was also not having any valid drug licence for
keeping, selling and distributing the drugs. Thereafter, upon
completion of the formalities, the complainant seized the drugs
after obtaining the receipt on Form No.16.
3. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against
the present petitioner for offence under Sections 27(B)(II), 28 &
22(3) of The Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under
section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.03.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.10.2005.
Hence, this revision petition.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1998 and out of total
sentence of one year's S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served more than 10 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed
[2025:RJ-JD:16047] (3 of 4) [CRLR-941/2005]
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1998 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of more than 10 days
in custody out of one year's of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections
27(B)(II), 28 & 22(3) of The Act is reduced to the period already
undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections
Sections 27(B)(II), 28 & 22(3) of The Act, the sentence awarded
to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period
already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby
maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail.
[2025:RJ-JD:16047] (4 of 4) [CRLR-941/2005]
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
17-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
