Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1014 (RAJ)

Manikant v. State

2015-05-07

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 8.5.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Case, Kota in cr. Appeal No. 9/1993 whereby he has upheld the judgment and order dated 16.6.1993 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Special Court (Communal Riots), Kota in Cr. Case No. 211/1993 by which he has convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Sec. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to six months RI with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 7.5.1981 one Laxmi Chand, Food Inspector reached at the shop of petitioner whereby he found that petitioner was selling the Ghee. The Inspector took ghee weighing 450 gms and divided the same in three bottles and sealed the same. The samples were sent for necessary testing to the Public Health Laboratory, Kota from where a remark has been obtained that ghee does not confirm to the prescribed standards of purity and is adultered with Vanaspati. The charges was framed for offence under Sec. 7/16 of P.F.A. Act, to which the petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 03 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above vide judgment dated 16.6.1993. 3. Against the said judgment dated 16.6.1993, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Kota who vide judgment and order dated 8.5.2002 upheld the judgment of trial court dated 16.6.1993. 4. Aggrieved against both the orders of courts below, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of courts below are against the facts & material on record, they have erred in not taking into consideration that the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with. No proper notice was given to the petitioner regarding the public analysis report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of courts below are against the facts & material on record, they have erred in not taking into consideration that the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with. No proper notice was given to the petitioner regarding the public analysis report. The learned trial court has further erred in law in not taking into consideration that the prosecution sanction has not been granted by the Local Health Authority, Kota but the same was granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Kota. It has further been contended that the occurrence took place on 7.5.1981 i.e. 34 years ago and the petitioner is facing the trial since long. 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 on the Judgment rendered in the case of Radha Kishan vs. State of Raj. reported in 2012(4) RLW 3417 (Raj.). 7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are just and proper. It has been contended that 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 in jail for serving out the sentence, as awarded by the court below. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgments. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 9. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I do not think it just and proper to acquit the petitioner nor to release him on probation. 10. The occurrence took place in the year 1981, and under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as above, and under Cl. (C) of Sec. 433 Cr.P.C., the appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, for 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 three decade has gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine for commutation of the sentence of six months RI, 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 Cl. (C) of Sec. 433 Cr.P.C. 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.