Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammed Ali vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:23396) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:23396]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 89/2004
Mohammed Ali S/o Mohammed Hanif by caste Muslim, R/o
Basani Tehsil & District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/05/2025
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 05.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge Nagaur, in Criminal appeal No.20/1988,
whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated
21.04.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagaur in Criminal Case No.181/1989 convicting the petitioner for
the offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple
imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo three months' S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 31.12.1988
Food Inspector Jagdish Chandra Vyas collected samples of milk
from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the
[2025:RJ-JD:23396] (2 of 5) [CRLR-89/2004]
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(1)(a)(ii) 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 two 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(1)(a)(ii) of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated
21.04.1998. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 05.02.2004. 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 1988. The petitioner was 33 years of age at
that time. He did not have 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:23396] (3 of 5) [CRLR-89/2004]
The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 37
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of eight
days out of total sentence of one year's 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 1988
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
33 years at that time and at present he is around 70 years of age.
The trial took 10 years to culminate and it took further 6 years in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision is pending before
this court for last 21 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 37
[2025:RJ-JD:23396] (4 of 5) [CRLR-89/2004]
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 eight
days out of total sentence of one year's 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 21.04.1998
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Criminal
Case No.181/1989 as well as the judgment in appeal dated
05.02.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur
in Criminal appeal No.20/1998 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section
7/16 (1)(a)(ii) 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
justice. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained.
[2025:RJ-JD:23396] (5 of 5) [CRLR-89/2004]
Two months' time is hereby granted to deposit the fine amount. In
default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo two months'
simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by
the petitioner shall be adjusted. The petitioner is on bail. He need
not surrender. His bail bonds are 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
4-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
