Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 327 (RAJ)

Ram Dayal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-03

S.C.SINGHAL

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.RC. against the judgment dated 24.1.1994 pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Criminal Appeal No. 23/91 whereby the conviction of the accused petitioner ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, on 18.2.1991 has been maintained under Section 7/19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The accused petitioner seeks to quash the judgment dated 18.2.1991 and 24.1.1994, respectively, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, whereby the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced u/s. 7/16 of the Act to undergo six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo three months imprisonment. 2. Though the present revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, but the learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been facing the trial in the criminal case since 1983 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence, should be reduced to have already been undergone and fine may be increased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101 . 3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. According to the learned counsel for the accused petitioner, the allegation of commission of offence against the petitioner is of the year 1983, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.2.1991, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 21.1.1994 and after dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court, the petitioner remained in custody from 24.1.1994. He was released on furnishing bail bonds after the bail order passed by this court only on or after 5.2.1994 as the bail bonds were submitted before the learned trial court on 5.2.1994. 4. I have perused the record and it appears that the accused was of the age of 32 years when the present revision petition was filed before this court and at the time of alleged commission of offence in the year 1983, he was young of about 21 years. Now, the accused petitioner is of the age of about more than 52 years. Now, the accused petitioner is of the age of about more than 52 years. He faced trial for a long period, he remained in custody for about 13 days, hence, in view of giving an opportunity to improve him, it will not be proper to send him behind the bar for the offence which was committed about more than 21 years. 5. At this juncture consideration of section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code appears necessary, which provides thus: "133. Power to commute sentence.-The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the person sentenced, commute (a) a sentence of death, for any other punishment provided by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) a sentence of imprisonment for life, for imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or for fine; (c) a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced or for fine. (d) a sentence of simple imprisonment, for fine." 6. Their lordships of the Supreme Court had occasioned to interpret section 133, Cr.RC. in N. Sukumaran Nair's case (supra) in that case a sample of ice-cream was purchased by the Food Inspector and it was found adulterated. The learned trial court acquitted the appellant on the ground that R. 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with inasmuch as the Food Inspector in support of his word did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt to establish that he had sent not only the sample properly sealed and fastened but the specimen impression of the seal too separately so that the Public Analyst could certify that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector to him. It was taken that unless the conditions aforementioned were satisfied, the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. It was taken that unless the conditions aforementioned were satisfied, the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial court taking the view that when the report of the Public Analyst specified that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector, making the sample in a condition fit for analysis, that was the end of the matter and that the statement of the Food Inspector was not deficient when the postal receipt was not adduced in evidence. The acquittal was thus upset and the appellant was convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of which further simple imprisonment for two months. Their lordships of the Apex Court, in view of the fact that the offence had taken place in the year 1984, were pleased to attract the provisions contained in section 433 Cr.P.C. and a direction came to be issued for commutation of sentence. The accused was also directed to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. The State Govt, was also directed to formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. 7. In the instant case, as already stated, the offence was committed in the year 1983 and the petitioner has been facing trial and was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act in the manner detailed hereinabove. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this is also a fit case for commutation of sentence u/s. 433 Cr.RC. 8. In view of the above, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner as awarded by the appellate court make out a fit case for commutation of sentence under section 433(d) of Cr.RC., I, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 8. In view of the above, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner as awarded by the appellate court make out a fit case for commutation of sentence under section 433(d) of Cr.RC., I, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months imprisonment within a period of 3 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Govt, that such fine has been deposited. On deposition of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 133 Cr.RC. 9. With this result, this revision petition of the petitioner stands disposed of.Revision petition disposed of as above. *******