The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision petition. Maintaining the conviction for food adulteration, the court reduced the awarded sentences to the period already undergone by the petitioner. Bail bonds were discharged, and no surrender was required.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged; no surrender required; case remanded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:34572]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 491/2003
Mangat Ram s/o Raja Ram r/o Redawalla, Tehsil & PS Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar at present residing in Sri Karanpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr.PankajGupta. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
04/10/2023
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 9.6.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Cr.Appeal No.7/2003 (26/1998) whereby the judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Cr.Original Case No.52/1993 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 7/16(1A)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.
From the perusal of the record of the case file, it is evident that on 25.03.1989, at around 8:05 am, Food Inspector
[2023:RJ-JD:34572]
[CRLR-491/2003]
(2 of 3)
Kewalkrishan took samples of milk which was being sold by the petitioner. The sample so collected was found to be adulterated and the petitioner was tried for the offence by competent criminal court and convicted vide judgment dated 20.11.1998, which came to be upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated 9.6.2003.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 2.7.2003 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application No.115/2003.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against him since 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003. Heard.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1989 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe as under:
(3 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JD:34572]
[CRLR-491/2003]
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)
“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”
Haripada Das (supra)
“… considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”
In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1A)(i) of the Food Adulteration Act, the sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the long pendency of the conviction case since 1989 warrants reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner without disturbing the conviction.
Whether the petitioner, who is on bail and facing a protracted trial, needs to surrender or if the bail bonds can be discharged.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶24
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶24
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangat Ram
State of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Kuldeep Mathur
Parties & counsel
