Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama vs State on 4 March, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:10575]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 779/2003
Rama S/o Kishana B/c Gujar, R/o Senti, P.S. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 28/02/2024 Corrected on 04.03.2024 This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.06.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in Regular Criminal Case No.98/1988 (State Vs. Rama) where by the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the order dated 14.07.2003 passed by learned Addtional Session Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.6/2003 whereby the judgment of the learned trial Court has been affirmed. The record of the case filed indicates that on 27.08.1987, the milk samples were taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor. The samples so drawn were sent for a report to the Public Analyst in conformity with the procedure provided under (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:44:22 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:10575] (2 of 3) [CRLR-779/2003] the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Public Analyst in his report found that the milk samples so taken to be 'Adulterated'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer that the petitioner had remained in custody for sometime in connection with the present case. The case is pending against him since 1987.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making an interference on merits, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka: 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan:
2014 CriLJ 2582.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 [2024:RJ-JD:4710] (3 of 3) [CRLR-16/2004] and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe as under-:
"Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:44:22 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:10575] (3 of 3) [CRLR-779/2003] suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and the petitioner is facing a long protracted trial since 1987. In the present case, admittedly milk samples were taken from the petitioner in the year 1987. The petitioner is presently aged about 85 years. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Thus, in the light of the precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954, the sentence awarded to him i.e for a period of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 6-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:44:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)