Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:24810) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24810]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 144/2006
Narayan Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh, R/o Anadara, District
Sirohi (Raj.) [Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/05/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 18.02.2006 passed by the learned
Session Judge, District Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.47/2003 whereby
the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 22.12.1998 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sirohi in Criminal Case
No.202/1996 by which the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced
the petitioner as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
Sec.2(1)(a), 7(1) 6 months' RI Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
R/w Sec. 16(1) fine, 1 month 15 days SI
(a)(i) of the
Prevention of
Food Adulteration
Act
Rule 50(1) of the - Rs.200/- and in default of payment of
Prevention of fine, 7 days' SI
Food Adulteration
Act
[2025:RJ-JD:24810] (2 of 4) [CRLR-144/2006]
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 12.05.1996, Shri
Laxmi Chand, Food Inspector, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirohi against the petitioner for selling adulterated khoya
without a license. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
as many as 04 witnesses and exhibited 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 Sections
2(1)(a), 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and Rule 50(1) of the said Act vide order dated
22.12.1998. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
accused-petitioner preferred an appeal against the conviction and
sentence before learned Session Judge, District Sirohi, whereby the
appellate court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 18.02.2006.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Surendra Surana, 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 1996. The accused-petitioner had
remained in judicial custody for some time. No other case has been
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 25 years in 1996 at the time of incident and the accused-
petitioner is aged about 54 years at present and has been facing trial
[2025:RJ-JD:24810] (3 of 4) [CRLR-144/2006]
since the year 1996 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 some time 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 six
months 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.
9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.1998 passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sirohi in Criminal Case
No.202/1996 and the judgment dated 18.02.2006 passed by the
learned Session Judge, District Sirohi, in Criminal Appeal No.47/2003
[2025:RJ-JD:24810] (4 of 4) [CRLR-144/2006]
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
16-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
