Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1004 (RAJ)

Narain Das v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 3.5.2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 21/2000, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 28.9.1999 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota in Criminal Case No. 266/1991, whereby he convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.7.1989 at 12.50 pm Food Inspector, Kota Shri Karan Singh Solanki reached to the shop of the accused petitioner at Police Line, Kota. He purchased 600 gms. Chilli Powder for the purpose of test of adulteration. He took three samples from purchased Chilli Powder and one sample was deposited in the office of Public Analyst, Kota, while other two samples were deposited in the office of Local Health Authority, Kota. The Chilli Powder was found adulterated after receipt of the report of Public Analyst, so he filed a criminal complaint before the trial court. 3. The accused petitioner was summoned and the trial was commenced. The Food Inspector was examined before the court and cross-examined at the stage of pre-charge evidence. The trial court framed charges for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused petitioner refused to plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court fixed the date for the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After taking the evidence for prosecution and examining the accused petitioner, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 28.9.1999 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him, as indicated above. Against the said judgment of the trial court, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota vide judgment dated 3.5.2001. 4. Against the said judgment dated 3.5.2001 passed by the appellate court, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 5. Against the said judgment of the trial court, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota vide judgment dated 3.5.2001. 4. Against the said judgment dated 3.5.2001 passed by the appellate court, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned judgments dated 28.9.1999 and 3.5.2001 passed by the courts below are patently illegal, unwarranted and contrary to facts on record, as such the same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that both the courts below have committed mistake in considering the untrustworthy evidence against the accused petitioner. He has further contended that there was no evidence that the Chilli Powder found at the shop of petitioner was unfit and harmful for human consumption. The circumstances showing adulteration to be marginal and also possibility of there being an error of judgment in analysis, therefore, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set-aside. He has further contended that the impugned judgments are ignoring the provisions of rule 9(J) of the Protection of Food Rules, 1955 and Section 13(2) of the Act, which provide that it is incumbent upon Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the public analyst to person, from whom samples were taken, before filing of complaint. Failure to do so, would entitle accused to an acquittal. Learned counsel has further contended that occurrence took place on 9.7.1989 and petitioner is facing the trial since the last 26 years. This caused mental agony, which is more than conviction, hence either he should be acquitted or he should be released on probation. 6. My attention was drawn to the judgment rendered in the case of Radha Kishan v. State of Rajasthan; reported in 2012 (4) RLW 3417 (Raj.). 7. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that it is a well proved case against the petitioner. The learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused petitioner for adulteration of Chilli powder. In such type of cases, the persons like the petitioner should not be acquitted nor should be released on probation and rather the petitioner should be sent to jail for serving out the sentence, as awarded by the trial court. 8. The learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused petitioner for adulteration of Chilli powder. In such type of cases, the persons like the petitioner should not be acquitted nor should be released on probation and rather the petitioner should be sent to jail for serving out the sentence, as awarded by the trial court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to acquit the petitioner or to release him on probation. 10. The occurrence took place in the year 1989 and under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the petitioner has been awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's RI; and under clause (C) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, to simple imprisonment for any term to which that person might have been sentenced or for fine. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence, where almost two and a half decades have gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine for 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 by him. On deposition of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (C) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Till then the petitioner will remain on same bail bonds, as already furnished by him. 11. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.