Partly allowed

Mangilal v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2023CRLR/481/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the challenge to conviction but modified the sentence in a 27-year-old case for food adulteration. Finding the petitioner an old man with no prior record after a delayed trial, the Court reduced the term to the period already undergone and waived the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; fine waived; bail bonds discharged.

Mangilal Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37193]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 481/2003

¶4

Mangilal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, B/c Kumhar, R/o Lasmanpura, Gram Panchayat, Majawada Post Majawada, Via—Dabok, District Udaipur.

¶5

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pradeep Shah
	Mr. CS Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Judgment

¶13

01/11/2023

¶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 28.05.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.5/2001, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 16.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.360/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7(V) Rule 50(i) & 7(1) R/w 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193]

[CRLR-481/2003]

(2 of 5)

Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 25.03.1996 the Food Inspector inspected the shop of the petitioner situated in Village Laxmanpura, Panchayat Majavada, District Udaipur, where the petitioner was selling food articles. The petitioner was informed about the inspection of the shop, however, he did not show any licence. Upon a suspicion that the mustard oil kept in the shop is adulterated, sample of the same was taken following due procedure. The same was found adulterated in testing, Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.

¶19

The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offences under Section 7(V), Rule 50(i) and Section 7(1) R/w 16 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 offences under Section 7(V) Rule 50(i) and Section 7(1) R/w 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 16.03.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 28.05.2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

[2023:RJ-JD:37193]

[CRLR-481/2003]

(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 1996. The petitioner was 30 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 27 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 28 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.

¶24

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 him 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.

¶25

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:37193]

[CRLR-481/2003]

(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 1996 and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged 30 years at that time and at present he is around 57 years of age. The trial took 2 years to culminate and it took further 2 years 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 27 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 28 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:37193]

[CRLR-481/2003]

(5 of 5)

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.360/1996 as well as the judgment in appeal dated 28.05.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal appeal No.5/2001 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7(V) Rule 50(i) & 7(1) R/w 16 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 also waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

¶34

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

¶35

Record be sent back.

¶36

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶37

24-MS/-

Mangilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal 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

Smt. Aasha Agarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sawai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanju Bhakar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Nanda Vs State of Rajasthan

Mala Ram and Ors. Vs State

Devi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan