Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sawa Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:31323) on 16 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:31323]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 557/2008
Sawa Ram S/o Jeevaji, by caste Mali, R/o Manadar, Police Station
Barloot, District Sirohi.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
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 09.06.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge
Sirohi, in Criminal appeal No.6/2006, whereby the learned appellate
court affirmed the judgment dated 19.12.2005 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.72/2000
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7(1) R/w
16(1)(A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing
him to undergo six months simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one
month’s S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 20.04.1997 Food
Inspector Salam Singh collected samples of milk-lolly from the shop
of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were
sent for examination and the same were found to be adulterated. A
complaint under Section 7(1)/16(1)(A)(i) and 16(1)(A)(ii) of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was present in the court.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:31:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31323] (2 of 4) [CRLR-557/2008] 3. The Learned Magistrate framed the 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 CrPC, 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 Section 7(1) R/w 16(1)(A)(i) of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 19.12.2005. Aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was
dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated
09.06.2008. 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 1997. He did not have 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 28 years.
The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of eleven 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 petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:31:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31323] (3 of 4) [CRLR-557/2008]
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 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 1997 and
much time has gone by since then. The trial took 8 years to
culminate and it took further 3 years 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 28 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 eleven 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
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:31:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31323] (4 of 4) [CRLR-557/2008]
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 19.12.2005
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal
Original Case No.72/2000 as well as the judgment in appeal dated
09.06.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal
appeal No.06/2006 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence
awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 7(1) R/w 16
(1)(A)(i) 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 already not deposited.
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 be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
21-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:31:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link