[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31277) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31277]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 434/2006
Ramesh Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Resident of Hanumangarh
Town, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/07/2025
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 15.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Hanumangarh, in Criminal
appeal No.33/2005, whereby the learned appellate court
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the
judgment dated 01.12.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Original Case No.258/1997
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 7/16(1)(A)(1)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to
undergo one year’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo
three month’s SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision petition are that on
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31277] (2 of 5) [CRLR-434/2006]
13.10.1996 complainant Food Inspector, PHC, Sangariya inspected
the drums containing milk which were being carried by the
petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750
m.l. milk from the petitioner. After following due procedure, the
samples were tested and the same were found to be adulterated.
Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner. A
notice under Section 13(2) was sent to the accused petitioner.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the offences under Section 7/16(1)(A)(1) 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 six 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
offences under Section 7/16(1)(A)(1) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 01.12.2000. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was
dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
15.05.2006. 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
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31277] (3 of 5) [CRLR-434/2006]
pertains to the year 1996. The petitioner was 31 years of age at
that time. He 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 2
months and 10 days out of total sentence of one year’s SI. 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 Additional Advocate General 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 the 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 1996
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
31 years at that time and at present he is around 60 years of age.
The trial took 4 years to culminate and it took further 6 years in
decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31277] (4 of 5) [CRLR-434/2006]
this court for last 19 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 2
months and 10 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 01.12.2000
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in
Cr. Original Case No.258/1997 as well as the judgment in appeal
dated 15.05.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No.33/2005 are
affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31277] (5 of 5) [CRLR-434/2006]
for the offence under Section 7/16(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 waived, if not deposited by the petitioner. 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, if received, be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
5-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 18/07/2025 at 10:44:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link