Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopa Ram vs State on 30 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:22998]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 458/2013
Gopa Ram S/o Shri Gokul Ram, by caste Jat, R/o Village & Post
Sangaria, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. (At present lodged in
Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
21/05/2024
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 16.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal
No.109/2012, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
judgment dated 24.07.2012 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur
Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.635/2010 convicting the
petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of 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, to further undergo one month's S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 09.09.1998
Food Inspector Harsh while conducting search of accused Gopa
[2024:RJ-JD:22998] (2 of 5) [CRLR-458/2013]
Ram, he took samples of milk of 750 ml. by paying Rs.5.25/-.
After following due procedure, the samples were sent for
examination and the same were found to be adulterated.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 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 the witnesses and exhibited various
documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the
prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,
denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after
hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence
Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence,
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the
offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
vide judgment dated 24.07.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the
learned appellate court vide judgment dated 16.07.2013. 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
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 1998. The petitioner was 44 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:22998] (3 of 5) [CRLR-458/2013]
The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 25
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three
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 old 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 1998
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
44 years at that time and at present he is around 70 years of age.
The trial took 14 years to culminate and it took further 1 year in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before
this court for last 11 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 25
[2024:RJ-JD:22998] (4 of 5) [CRLR-458/2013]
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 three
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 24.07.2012
passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
(Economic Offence), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case
No.635/2010 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 16.07.2013
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur
Metropolitan in Criminal appeal No.109/2012 is 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
[2024:RJ-JD:22998] (5 of 5) [CRLR-458/2013]
justice. The fine imposed by the courts below is hereby
maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioner shall undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,
if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. Record be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
147-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
