Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1297 (RAJ)

Hira Lal S/o Harka Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-09-06

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. The petitioner by way of present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has assailed the impugned judgment dated 11.09.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta (for short, 'learned appellate Court') in criminal appeal no. 18/1996, whereby, the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar (learned trial Court) vide judgment dated 31.05.1994 for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced the petitioner to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergone three month's simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition are that on 21.04.88, the Food Inspector inspected the Ice factory owned by the petitioner and took sample of ice candies manufactured in the petitioner's factory in the sample bottles. Upon sending the sample to the Public Analyst, although the sample was found to be substandard. Accordingly, upon obtaining sanction from the competent authority, a challan was filed before the learned trial court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 (1)(a) of Food Adulteration Act. The learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 31.05.1994, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act and passed the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Court ordered that petitioner shall undergo three month's simple imprisonment. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, petitioner approached the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the conviction for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the sample report was not received from the laboratory within a period of one month as prescribed under Section 13(2)(b) of the Act and as such when mandatory provision was not followed, the report of the institution becomes inadmissible. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the sample report was not received from the laboratory within a period of one month as prescribed under Section 13(2)(b) of the Act and as such when mandatory provision was not followed, the report of the institution becomes inadmissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that trial court has committed an error in not following the mandatory condition as prescribed in Rule 21 so also Rule 7/17 of the Rules so also Section 11(3) wherein the sample of the article taken h to be sent by the Food Inspector on the succeeding working day whereas, the sample was taken on 21.04.1988 but the same was received by the public health laboratory on 23.04.2016, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that both the courts have given concurrent finding against the petitioner and same is not liable to be interfered in this revision petition. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 8. The petitioner-accused contended that though the sample was sent on 27.05.89, the report of the Central Food Laboratory is dated 04.10.1989, which is a violation of the provisions of Section 13(2B) of the Act. It is specifically mentioned in the report of Central Food Laboratory that the sample was received on 06.09.89 and the report was prepared on 04.10.89, thus it cannot be said that Central Food Laboratory did not send the certificate in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of sample specifying the result of the analysis. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the report ought to have been received within 30 days, but, as rightly pointed out by the Courts below this cannot be stated to affect the case in any manner unless the petitioner-accused is able to show some prejudice. Of course, this section provides that the report should be sent within 30 days. But, even if the report is not sent within the said period, the accused cannot contend that the whole prosecution is vitiated and that he should be acquitted. Unless prejudice is shown to the accused, the mere delay cannot vitiate the prosecution or the trial. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the delay in receipt of the report will not vitiate the trial of the Petitioner-accused. Moreso, this being purely a question of fact and both the trial Court and the appellate Court having held against the petitioner-accused on this ground and there being no infirmity or illegality in this finding of fact, I am not inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner-accused. 9. Further, it is also not in dispute that the report of the Public Analyst (Ex.P/7) opines that the sample of food article which was taken on 21.04.2016 does not conform to the prescribed standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and same was unadulterated and as per report of Public Analyst the food sample was received by the Public Analyst on 23.04.2016. Although as per Section 11(3) of the Act, the sample of the article taken has to be sent by the Food Inspector on the succeeding working day but no such contention was raised by the petitioner during the trial at the stage of cross-examination and therefore, the contention of delay of one day cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution and cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage in this revision petition. 10. In view of above, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merit and same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner is not a habitual offence and therefore, the prayer to examine the case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence is acceptable. 11. 10. In view of above, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is without any merit and same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner is not a habitual offence and therefore, the prayer to examine the case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence is acceptable. 11. In N. Sukumaran (supra), 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." 12. 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. 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." 13. In this view of the matter and considering the fact that incident has occurred about 28 years back, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- as fine before learned trial Court in commutation of sentence of six month's rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 7/16(1)(a) of the Act, within a period of two 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. Revision disposed of.