Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1155 (RAJ)

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/1994, whereby he confirmed the judgment dated 20.8.1994 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, in Cr. Case No. 110/1986 (291/1985) whereby the accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- "U/s. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment. One day imprisonment for violation of Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in non-payment of fine, 7 days simple Imprisonment and one day imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/- under Rule 50 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and in non-payment of fine, 7 days simple Imprisonment." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. On 14.8.1994 P.W.1, Dwarka Prasad, described himself, to be Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of 'Mustered Oil' and the sample was sent for analysis found to be adulterated. A charge-sheet was filed on 18.12.1985, the prosecution examined Dwarka Prasad as PW. and Sita Ram as PW. 2 and ' produced ten documents. According to the prosecution case, the sample was' taken from M/s. Neml Chand Kundi Lal. Thus, the accused petitioner has committed offence under section 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. 4. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, framed the charge against the accused petitioner. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses and: exhibited ten documents in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.PC., in which he denied the prosecution case. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred the appellate court, had confirmed the said order of conviction and sentence. 6. Hence, this revision petition, 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments passed by the Courts-below, are totally illegal and perverse. He has further contended that the trial Court has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence made available on record. 6. Hence, this revision petition, 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments passed by the Courts-below, are totally illegal and perverse. He has further contended that the trial Court has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence made available on record. He has also contended that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the accused petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the judgments passed by the Courts-below, in the : circumstances of the case, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Lastly, he has contended that the incident took place on 14.8.1994 (sic.) and almost 20 years have already elapsed from today. The accused petitioner did suffer mental agony, remained in jail for eight days, which is more than conviction and this is his first offence and the petitioner is not a habitual offender. Hence, he may be released on probation if he is not acquitted or on the period already undergone by him. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that it is a well proved case of the prosecution and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for committing offence of adulteration of 'Mustered Oil', therefore, the petitioner should not be released on probation or on the period already undergone by him. He has also submitted that the petitioner should be sent to jail for serving the remaining sentence as ordered by the trial Court. He has again contended that no interference is required by this Court in the judgments passed by the courts below. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts-below, and also the record of the case. My attention has been drawn towards the case of N. Sukunmaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara (1997) 9 SC 101 : RLW 1996 (1) SC 15 . 10. The offence took place in the year 1994 (sic.). The accused petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment as indicated above. Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. The appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple Imprisonment for fine. 11. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. The appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple Imprisonment for fine. 11. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of he 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; tinder clause (d) of section 433 of Cr.PC. Till then the petitioner will remain on same ball bonds. 12. With these observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******