[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bharat Kirana Store And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:29779) on 9 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:29779]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 605/2008
1. Bharat Kirana Store through its proprietor Jujar Bhai
2. Jujar Bhai S/o Abdul Hussain R/o Mandrar, Tehsil Revdar,
District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, assistant to
Mr. Deepak Chowdhary, GA-cum-AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/07/2025
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 25.06.2008 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.44/2007, whereby the learned
appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed against the
judgment dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No.27/2002. The learned
appellate Judge acquitted the petitioner Jujar Bhai from the
offence under Rule 50(1) R/w Section 7/16(1)(A)(II) of Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act and convicted him for the offence under
Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act and sentenced him to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment
alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
further to undergo 30 days’ SI.
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:25:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29779] (2 of 5) [CRLR-605/2008]
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 16.06.2001
the Food Inspector Salam Singh inspected the petitioner’s shop,
i.e., Bharat Kirana Store. Upon suspicion of adulteration in
mustard oil, the food inspector collected 375 gms. mustard oil
from the petitioner for testing on payment of Rs.11.50/- to the
petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was
given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of mustard oil.
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 charges against the
petitioner for the offences under Section 7(1) R/w Section 16(1)
(a)(1) and Section 50(1) R/w 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 four
witnesses and exhibited various documents. In defence, eight
witnesses were examined. 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.
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 Rule
50(1) R/w Section 7/16(1)(A)(II) and Section 7(1)/16(1)(a)(1) of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated
26.06.2007. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:25:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29779] (3 of 5) [CRLR-605/2008]
preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned
appellate court vide judgment dated 25.06.2008. 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 2001. 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 24 years. The petitioner has
remained in custody for a period of about 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 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
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:25:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29779] (4 of 5) [CRLR-605/2008]
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 2001
and much time has gone by since then. The trial took 6 years to
culminate and it took further 1 year in decision of the appeal.
Thereafter, this revision is pending before this court for last 17
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 24 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 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.
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:25:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29779] (5 of 5) [CRLR-605/2008]
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2007
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal
Case No.27/2002 as well as the judgment in appeal dated
25.06.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in
Criminal Appeal No.44/2007 are affirmed but the quantum of
sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section
7(1)/16(1)(a)(1) 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.
The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already
deposited by the petitioner, then two months’ time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one month S.I. 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
22-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 11/07/2025 at 10:25:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link