Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 375 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

2024-02-28

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 24.01.2001 passed by the learned Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby he has been convicted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the order dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Sri Ganganagar in criminal appeal no. 65/2003 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed. 2. As per prosecution, on 27.03.1997 the milk samples were taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor. The same were sent for report to the Public Analyst after duly following the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The public Analyst in its report has found that the milk samples so taken to be 'Adulterated'. 3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and 16 documents were exhibited. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the incident in the present case occurred in the year 1997. There is no positive evidence regarding the adding of water in the milk by the petitioner and in the absence thereof, only on the basis of the report of Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed the alleged crime or the milk was adulterated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1997 and the petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded to him, therefor the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v. State of Karnataka: 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582. 6. Per Contra learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioner. 6. Per Contra learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders and therefore the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the case. 8. This Court finds that the concurrent finding of fact with regard to petitioner being guilty of mixing water in the milk. This Court finds that the petitioner was a milk vendor and therefore there is no reason available with it to disbelief the report of the Public Analyst, wherein the samples drawn from the milk were found to be 'Adulterated'. However, in the opinion of this Court since the incident relates to the year 1997 and the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 26 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period already undergone while directing him to deposit the fine amount if not already deposited. 9. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction, the petitioner's sentence for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount, if not already deposited by him within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. In default of such deposit within the stipulated period, the revision petition shall stand dismissed and the petitioner shall be sent to jail to serve the remaining sentence. 10. The record of the trial court as well as appellate court be sent back forthwith.