Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 96 (RAJ)

Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-15

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 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 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal appeal No. 47/2004, whereby the learned appellate court partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and while maintaining his conviction for offence under Section 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, reduced the sentence from one years S.I. to six months S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' S.I., as passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide judgment dated 25.11.2004 in Cr. Original Case No. 149/2000. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 17.09.1999 the complainant Omprakash Kalla, Food Inspector took samples of cow milk from the shop of the petitioner. After following due procedure, the samples were analyzed and the same were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner. 3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration 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 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 25.11.2004. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 17.12.2004 and while maintaining the petitioner's conviction, reduced his sentence. Hence, this revision petition. 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 and reduced by the appellate court. Hence, this revision petition. 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 and reduced by the appellate court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1999. The petitioner was 28 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 25 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 25 days, out of total sentence of six months 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 facts 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 1999 and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged 28 years at that time and at present he is around 53 years of age. The trial took five years to culminate and it took further about one month in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 20 years. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The trial took five years to culminate and it took further about one month in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 20 years. 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 25 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 25 days out of total sentence of six months 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 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 149/2000 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 17.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2004 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 R/w Rule 50(1) 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 courts below is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The fine imposed by the courts below is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. 10. Record be sent back.