Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1524 (RAJ)

Kamal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2023-08-11

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C challenge has been made to the judgment dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.16/2000, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.107/1995; whereby the petitioners have been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of 7 days' simple imprisonment. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 09.10.1995, Mr. P.C. Harsh, Food Inspector, inspected the shop of the accused petitioners M/s. Rajesh Kirana and Provision Store situated at Ghantaghar, Jodhpur. Petitioner Kamal Kishore was found selling food articles. He told that the owner of the shop is Rajesh. The Food Inspector purchased 1.5 kg salt from the shop paying Rs.2.25 and took three samples of same and got it tested from Public Analyst, who gave a report that the sample was adulterated, upon which, after taking prosecution sanction, a complaint was filed against the petitioners. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences, examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. One witness was examined in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the accused petitioners for offence under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 30.03.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 07.07.2001 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 07.07.2001 affirming the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1995. The petitioners were petty shopkeepers. They were not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against them. No adverse remark has been passed over their conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioners have already suffered agony of protracted trial of 28 years. The petitioners have remained in custody for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioners and they had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that they have remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. 6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1995. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 28 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. It was the first criminal case registered against them. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 28 years and have been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. It was the first criminal case registered against them. They have not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. They have remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioners deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioners also deserve the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das v. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal antecedents of the petitioners, their status in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.107/1995 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No.16/2000 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence they have undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 10. Record be sent back to the trial court.