Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1157 (RAJ)

Deva v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-16

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.8.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bundi, in Criminal Appeal No. 134/1998, whereby he confirmed the judgment dated 2.9.1998 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, in Cr. Case No. 198/1981 whereby the accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:- "u/S. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 six month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- A complaint was filed by Food Inspector, Bundi, u/S. 7/16 of the Act, in the Court of learned CJM, Bundi, stating therein that the complainant found the accused petitioner selling milk on 10.9.1981 at 9.30 a.m. on making inquiry the petitioner told the milk to be of cow. On which, the Inspector gave a notice (Ex. P. 3) to the petitioner and purchased 660 mgs milk and paid the amount of milk through a receipt (Ex. P.4). The sample was taken and the same was sent for Public Analyzer, Kota. The Public Analyzer found the milk having 3.3 fat and solid non fat 6.52 in the milk and also reported that 23% water mixed in the milk. On which, the local Medical Officer, issued prosecution sanction on 25.9.1981 for prosecution of the accused petitioner. Thus, the accused petitioner has committed offence u/S. 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act. 3. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, framed the charges against the accused petitioner. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses and exhibited certain documents in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S. 313 Cr. P.C., 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. 5. Hence, this revision petition, 6. 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. 5. Hence, this revision petition, 6. 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 10.9.1981 and almost 22 years have already elapsed from today and the accused petitioner did suffer mental agony, which is more than conviction and this is his first offence and the petitioner is not a habitual offender. Hence, he may be released or probation if he is not acquitted or on the period already undergone by him. 7. 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 milk, 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. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts-below, and also the material on record. My attention has been drawn towards the case of N. Sukunmaran Nair vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara (1997) 9 SC 101 = RLW 1996(1) SC 15. 9. The offence took place in the year 1981. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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 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 Clause (d) of Section 433 of Cr.P.C. Till then the petitioner will remain on same bail bonds. 11. With these observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of.