Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 396 (RAJ)

Balwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-06

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the Judgement dated 29.01.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.5/1996 whereby he partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence from one year's simple imprisonment to six month's simple imprisonment and also reduced the fine amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment awarded vide judgment dated 16.12.1995 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.11/1995 whereby he convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector submitted a complaint before the learned trial court to the effect that on 01.02.1994, he inspected Sureshwar Hary & Provision Store, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur of the petitioner and took sample of milk for examination and on chemical examination from the analyst, the same was found adulterated and thereafter the case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. 3. The learned trial court, thereafter, framed charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner to which petitioner denied and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charge, complainant Sampat Raj (PW-1) was examined. Thereafter, petitioner-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated the prosecution case is false and did not lead any evidence in defence even after availing opportunity. 4. The learned trial court, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid vide judgment dated 16.12.1995. Aggrieved by this Judgement of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner-accused preferred appeal before the learned appellate court which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 29.01.1996 and the judgment of conviction was upheld but sentenced was reduced as aforesaid. Hence, this revision petition. 5. This court, vide order dated 01.02.1996, admitted the revision petition for hearing and while suspending the sentence passed in criminal appeal, granted bail to the petitioner-accused. 6. Heard Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Mr. Hence, this revision petition. 5. This court, vide order dated 01.02.1996, admitted the revision petition for hearing and while suspending the sentence passed in criminal appeal, granted bail to the petitioner-accused. 6. Heard Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Upadhyay, learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-accused, without pressing the conviction and without arguing on the merits of the case, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon' ble Supreme Court N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [ (1997) 9 SCC 101 ] , wherein the Hon' ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant 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. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, 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' 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure." 8. Mr. Kumbhat placed reliance on Ramcharan v. The State of Rajasthan [2007(1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 275 ] also, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this court also relied upon the judgment of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra) and ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- for commutation of sentence. 9. Mr. Mr. Kumbhat placed reliance on Ramcharan v. The State of Rajasthan [2007(1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 275 ] also, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this court also relied upon the judgment of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra) and ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- for commutation of sentence. 9. Mr. Kumbhat further submitted that here, in the instant case also, the matter relates to a complaint filed in the year 1995 and trial court, vide its judgment dated 16.12.1995, has awarded sentence of one year's simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act, which was reduced by the appellate court as aforesaid and he is facing trial since then and had remained in custody for some time and presently he is about 44 years old and is the only bread earner in his family, therefore, his sentence may be commuted in fine. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments. 11. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record and impugned judgments. 12. As per the ratio decided by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra), the present case is also a fit case and would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where more than 11/2 decades have gone by. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the trial court as fine in commutation of the aforesaid sentence plus the fine of Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the learned trial court within a period of three months 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 order under clause (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that in case petitioner fails to pay the fine as ordered, he would serve the sentence as imposed by the learned trial court and confirmed in appeal. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 14. The record of the courts below be sent back with copy of the order forthwith for compliance. *******