Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 794 (RAJ)

Naresh Kumar Gupta 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 20.8.2004 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2004 whereby he dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 19.11.2003 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1 Alwar in Criminal Case No. 281/2001 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted under section 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer fifteen days simple 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 Kunj Bihari Bhardwaj against the petitioner stating therein that on 9.9.1996 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 simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further fifteen days simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 19.11.2003. Thereafter the accused petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the trial court before the Sessions Judge Alwar which was transferred for disposal in the court of Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Alwar. The Special Judge after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his judgment dated 20.8.2004. Aggrieved against both these orders of the trial courts dated 19.11.2003 and 20.8.2004 this revision petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the judgments dated 20.8.2004 and 19.11.2003 passed by both the courts below are patently illegal and perverse to the facts on the record. He has further pointed out that Ex.P/8 prepared by the analyst is dated 18.9.1996 while test was conducted on 12.9.1996. No explanation has been given as to why the report was prepared six days after examination of the sample. He has further pointed out that Ex.P/8 prepared by the analyst is dated 18.9.1996 while test was conducted on 12.9.1996. No explanation has been given as to why the report was prepared six days after examination of the sample. Ex.P/8 does not reflect nor PW.4 has stated tha the contents of the sample were made homogenious and thoroughly shaking the bottle before the sample was put to test. 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 1996 which is 16 years ago and the accused petitioner is facing trial for the last 16 years. This caused mental agony which is more than conviction ahd 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 1996. The petitioner has been awarded six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost sixteen 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 sixteen 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 simple 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.