Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1005 (RAJ)

K. B. Jain v. State

2015-05-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 10.5.1989 passed by Judge, Special Court, Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur in cr. case no. 2/1986 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under: U/s. 3/7 of EC Act: Sentenced to 4 months SI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month SI. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 6.9.1984 Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj (PW-5) Vegetable Inspector took samples of batch No.6, 13, 14 and 15 of vegetable product of Premier Vegetable Products Ltd., Jhotwara, Jaipur. He took 16 samples from the tins in all i.e. 4 samples from each batch weighting 115 gms in each tin of sample and they were covered with lid after shouldering. He sent the samples of vegetable oil to the Vegetable Directorate, Delhi. Sh. C.P. Verma, Research Chemist analysed the samples on 21.9.1984 and he did not find the sample of batch no.6 as per the prescribed standard. The free fatty acid was found 0.303 in the sample whereas the maximum standard limit for the free fatty acid is prescribed as 0.25 in vegetable products. 3. On 17.8.1984, a report was lodged at P.S. Jhotwara for offence under Section 3/7 of EC Act and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence before the court of learned trial court. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.5.1989. 4. Against the said judgment dated 10.5.1989, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.5.1989. 4. Against the said judgment dated 10.5.1989, the petitioner preferred the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that accused appellant has remained in custody for more than 8 days, the occurrence took place on 6.9.1984, he is facing trial since long, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, he is an old person having children in his family of marriageable age, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned order passed by the Appellate court is just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the petitioner should neither be released on probation nor the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that accused petitioner has remained in custody for more than 08 days, he is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with the following directions: (i) The conviction of the appellant is maintained. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand canceled. (ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused appellant was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand canceled. (iv) Impugned judgment of the court below stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.