Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:42978) on 24 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:42978]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 435/2009
Bheru Lal S/o Chunni Lal R/o Lakhamaniyas, Post Losadiya,
Tehsil Kotadi, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/09/2025
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 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal
No.96/2006 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
judgment dated 01.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh in Criminal Regular Case
No.358/1996 whereby learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner
for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple
imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple
imprisonment.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the Food
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 11:12:30 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42978] (2 of 5) [CRLR-435/2009]
Inspector Naval Kishore Mehta submitted a complaint before
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh to the
effect that on 03.04.1996 at about 07:30 AM, during patrolling at
Nehru Nagar, Kotadi he found the petitioner was carrying milk in
two iron containers. The food inspector collected 750 ml. milk
from the petitioner for testing on payment of Rs.4.50/- to the
petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was
given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of milk. After
following due procedure, the sample was tested and the same was
found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented
against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed 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 four witnesses and exhibited various
documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the
prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. In
defence, no witness was examined. Then, after hearing the
learned Public Prosecutor and upon meticulous appreciation of the
evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 01.09.2006. Aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was
dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
15.04.2009. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 11:12:30 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42978] (3 of 5) [CRLR-435/2009]
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 1996. The petitioner 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. The petitioner has already
suffered agony of protracted trial of 29 years. The petitioner has
remained in custody for a period of about 5 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, 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 dismissed 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 1996
and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 10 years to
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 11:12:30 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42978] (4 of 5) [CRLR-435/2009]
culminate and it took further 3 years in decision of the appeal.
Thereafter, this revision is pending before this court for last 16
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 29 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 about 5 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 15.04.2009
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mandalgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.358/1996 as well as the
judgment in appeal dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara in Criminal
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 11:12:30 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:42978] (5 of 5) [CRLR-435/2009]
Appeal No.96/2006 are 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 justice. The fine imposed by
the trial court is hereby waived. 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 of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
21-Rashi/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 11:12:30 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
