Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1043 (RAJ)

Jagdish Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-22

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
ORDER : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. The petitioner by way of present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has assailed the impugned judgment dated 27.01.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), in criminal appeal no. 10/1995, whereby, the learned appellate Court has maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (learned trial Court) for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the Food Inspector took sample of coriander from the shop of the petitioner. The Food Inspector sent the sample to the Public Analyst at Jodhpur which was not found to be conforming to standard of purity. Upon obtaining sanction from the competent authority, a challan was filed before the learned trial court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act against the petitioner and his father Vishandas. The learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and the accused denied the charge. 3. The prosecution, in support of the complaint, examined the food inspector. 4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, the accused examined one witness Chhotu Singh. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 04.10.1995, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act and passed the sentence of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Court ordered that petitioner shall undergo three month's simple imprisonment. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, petitioner approached the learned appellate Court but the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the conviction and sentence. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court but his only prayer is for issuance of direction to the State Government to consider case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and therefore, his case for commutation of sentence can very well be considered by the Government under Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. In support of this plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [1995 SC CANDID 80] and Deva v. State of Rajasthan [2015 2 RLW(Raj.) 1002; 2014 Supreme(Raj) 544]. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer in general and submitted that in some of the identical cases, directions have been issued by the Court for consideration of commutation of sentence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and therefore, the prayer to examine the case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence is acceptable. 10. In N. Sukumaran (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the matter pertaining to offence under Section 7/16 of the Act on the touchstone of Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. and held : “3. 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. 1,000.00 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. 6,000.00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks form 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 Procedures.” 11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deva(supra) following the verdict in N. Sukumaran (supra) and taking into account the fact that incident is too old, held as under : “9. The offence took place in the year 1981. The accused petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment as indicated above. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Deva(supra) following the verdict in N. Sukumaran (supra) and taking into account the fact that incident is too old, held as under : “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. 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.” 12. Undisputedly, since conviction of the petitioner, there is nothing adverse against him so as to prove that he is involved in food adulteration. In this view of the matter and considering the fact that incident has occurred about 26 years back, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine before the learned trial Court in commutation of sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment within a period of three months from today. After deposition the aforesaid amount, the petitioner may intimate the appropriate Government so as to formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders; under Clause (d) of Section 433 Cr.P.C. Till then the matter is formalized by the State Government for passing appropriate orders for commutation of sentence, the petitioner shall remain on the same bail bonds. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.