Partly allowed

Mohan Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2023CRLR/1089/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the revision petition partly, maintaining the conviction for food adulteration but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and waiving the fine. The court was guided by the extensive delay in the trial and appeal, the petitioner's age, and lack of criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period undergone; fine waived; petitioner on bail; bonds discharged.

Mohan Lal Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38888]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1089/2002

¶4

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Chunni Lal, B/c Jat, R/o Village Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶5

(At present lodged in sub-jail Nohar)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DL Mothsara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

08/11/2023

¶14

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 29.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Regular Appeal No.28/1999, whereby learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 08.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Regular Criminal Case No.105/1993 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month’s SI.

¶15

Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 10.03.1993, the Food Inspector Shri Inderjeet Rai submitted a complaint

[2023:RJ-JD:38888]

[CRLR-1089/2002]

(2 of 5)

against the present petitioner under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the complaint, he alleged that on 18.10.1992 at about 7:30 AM when he reached at Sonari Road from Nohar for inspection, the present petitioner was selling buffalo milk. The inspection was done and during inspection, no permission letter was found with the petitioner. On suspicion about the purity of milk, the Food Inspector purchased 750 ML milk from the petitioner and after preparing the sample, Rojnamcha was prepared. The sample was sent to health laboratory and on receiving the report, the same was found to be adulterated. Therefore, the complaint was filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar and the present petitioner was summoned through bailable warrant.

¶20

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of PF 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 its witnesses. 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 of PF Act vide judgment dated 08.10.1999. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 29.11.2002. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

[2023:RJ-JD:38888]

[CRLR-1089/2002]

(3 of 5)

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 1992. The petitioner was 31 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 30 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 18 days out of total sentence of six months RI. 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.

¶25

Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is an old aged person. 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.

¶26

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:38888]

[CRLR-1089/2002]

(4 of 5)

As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 1992 and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged 31 years at that time and at present he is around 62 years of age. The trial took 6 years to culminate and it took further 3 years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for last 21 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 30 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 18 days out of total sentence of six months R.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 Vs. State of West Bangal , reported in (1998 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioner, his 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:38888]

[CRLR-1089/2002]

(5 of 5)

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 08.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, Hanumangarh in Regular Criminal Case No.105/1993 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 29.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.28/1999 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16) of PF 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 also waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶35

The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶36

Record be sent back.

¶37

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶38

19-MS/-

Mohan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pyaar Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop Vs Jagdish Chandra

Kheta Ram Vs State

Smt. Kani Bai Vs State of Rajasthan