Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 791 (RAJ)

Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-30

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15.5.2004 passed by Sessions Judge Baran, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2004 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 22.2.2002 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Baran in Criminal Case No. 202/2000 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that a complaint under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 came to be filed by the Food Inspector Rishi Kumar against the petitioner stating therein that on 25.10.1997 he collected the milk sample from the accused petitioner which on testing was found to be adulterated i.e. not confirming to the prescribed standards under the Act of 1954. It was therefore averred that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Act of 1954. After hearing the arguments, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for offence under section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further one month rigorous imprisonment vide judgment dated 22.2.2002. Thereafter the accused petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court before the Sessions Judge Baran. The Sessions Judge, Baran after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his judgment dated 15.5.2004. Aggrieved against both these orders of the trial courts dated 22.2.2002 and 15.5.2004 this revision petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Ganesh Meena, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the judgments dated 15.5.2004 and 22.2.2002 passed by both the courts below are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on the record. He has further pointed out that PW.2 Kesri Lal has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. He has not even supported the basic requirements for alleged offence and the other two witnesses are one is complainant himself and another is his colleague Food Inspector. These facts clearly shows that the whole case is false and fabricated. He has further pointed out that PW.2 Kesri Lal has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. He has not even supported the basic requirements for alleged offence and the other two witnesses are one is complainant himself and another is his colleague Food Inspector. These facts clearly shows that the whole case is false and fabricated. The analyst report is prepared on 3.11.1997 and in the notice under section 13(2) it is stated that same is dated 1.11.1997. Such a material and legal aspect of the case has not been given due considerations by the courts below. In these circumstances it was prayed by the accused petitioner that the conviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He has further drawn attention of the prosecution witnesses and documents submitted by the prosecution. Hence he has requested to this court that the matter belongs to alleged incident of 1997 which is 15 years ago and the accused petitioner is facing trial for the last 15 years. This caused mental agony which is more than conviction and hence he should be released on probation. 4. The Public Prosecutor opposed the same and he has contended that it is a well proof case and the trial courts have rightly convicted the accused petitioner for the adulteration in the Milk and in such types of cases the person like the petitioner should not be released on probation and the period already under gone by him. The petitioner should be sent to Jail for serving out the sentence as ordered by the courts below. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments of both the courts below. My attention has been drawn towards the case of N. Sukumaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara (1997) 9 SC 101 = RLW 1996(1) SC 15. 6. The offence took place in the year 1997. The petitioner has been awarded six months rigorous imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Under clause (d) of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for fine. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost fifteen year has gone by. I therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost fifteen year has gone by. I therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under cluse (d) of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Till then the petitioner will remain on same bail bonds. 7. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.