Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sohan Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5892) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5892]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 180/2006
Sohan Lal S/o Shri Gayanaram, B/c Kumhar, R/o Sahjipura,
Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Gaur
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/01/2025
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 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District &
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal
No.24/2005, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
judgment dated 03.04.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.107/1998
convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)
(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to
undergo one year’s simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months’ S.I.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 01.06.1997
Food Inspector Rajender Prasad took samples of milk from the
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5892] (2 of 5) [CRLR-180/2006]
shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples
were sent for examination and the same were found to be
adulterated.
3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) 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 five 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 offence under Section 7/16(1)(a)(i) of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated
03.04.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he
preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate
court vide judgment dated 21.02.2006. 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
pertains to the year 1997. 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
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5892] (3 of 5) [CRLR-180/2006]
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 forty seven 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, she does not refute the fact
that the petitioner is an old aged person. 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 4 years to
culminate and it took further 5 years in decision of the appeal.
Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 18
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 27 years and has been in the
corridors of the court for this prolonged period. It was the first
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5892] (4 of 5) [CRLR-180/2006]
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 forty seven 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 03.04.2001
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in
Criminal Case No.107/1998 as well as the judgment in appeal
dated 21.02.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge Fast Track, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.24/2005
are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the
petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(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 amount, as
imposed by the learned trial Court, is already deposited by the
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5892] (5 of 5) [CRLR-180/2006]
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 be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
18-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 30/01/2025 at 09:58:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link