Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 341 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-22

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
ORDER : 1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2019, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Criminal Case No. 912/2011 (320/2010) convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and under Rule 50(1) R/o Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Addl. R.I. For violation of Rule 50(1) of PFA Rules, the learned trial court also awarded the same sentence. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 30.08.2010 the Food Inspector Sanjay submitted a complaint before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara to the effect that on 23.02.2010, he inspected the drums containing milk which were being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 1500 ML milk and upon examination, the same was found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7/16 and Rule 50 of PFA Rules R/w Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined the witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act and Rule 50(1) R/w Section 16(1)(a)(ii) PFA Act vide judgment dated 17.09.2019. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 09.02.2024. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 09.02.2024. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court. 4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner 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 2010. The petitioner was 24 years of age at that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 14 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of fourteen days out of total sentence of one year's S.I. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has 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 case pertains to the year 2010 and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged 24 years at that time and at present he is around 38 years of age. The trial took 9 years to culminate and it took further 5 years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court. The petitioner was aged 24 years at that time and at present he is around 38 years of age. The trial took 9 years to culminate and it took further 5 years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 14 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for a period of fourteen days out of total sentence of one year's S.I. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves 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, petitioner's criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he 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 petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bhilwara in Regular Cr. Case No. 912/2011 (320/2010) as well as the judgment in appeal dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara in Criminal appeal No. 222/2019 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(1)(a) (ii) and Rule 50(1) R/w Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Upon depositing the fine amount, the petitioner, who is in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.