Partly allowed

Kalu Lal v. State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLR/115/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition challenging conviction for food adulteration. The High Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, citing the petitioner's advanced age and mental agony from protracted trial, while maintaining the fine and requiring a personal bond for potential appeal.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained with 3 months to deposit; personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with surety directed under Section 437-A CrPC.

Kalu Lal Vs State of Raj. — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25732]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2005

¶4

Kalu Lal s/o, Gobri Lal Gurjar, R/o, Mungena Police Station Itawa, Distt. Kota Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aquif Khan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh Sisodiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

29/05/2024

¶13

The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC has been filed by the accused-petitioner challenging the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2005 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, (Women Atrocities and Dowry cases), Kota (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.44/2004, by which the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and has upheld the judgment dated 03.06.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Communal Riots Cases, Kota (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.60/1992, whereby the Trial Court has found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1954’) and sentenced him to undergo six months

[2024:RJ-JP:25732]

[CRLR-115/2005]

(2 of 4)

simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. He has also been punished for offence under Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 read with Section 7/16 of The Act of 1954 and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 days imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the Food Inspector filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the Trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner was doing the business of selling milk, without having any valid license on 05.09.1988 when he was selling milk, a sample of the milk was taken and the same was sent to Health Authority, Kota, it was found that the milk was adulterated. On the basis of the same, the complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 was submitted against the petitioner and, accordingly, substance of accusation was recorded against him for the above offences. The petitioner denied the accusation and charges and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector and exhibited certain documents. Explanation of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein he denied his participation in the incident and upon conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2004, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offences stated above.

¶19

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court which

[2024:RJ-JP:25732]

[CRLR-115/2005]

(3 of 4)

came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2005. Hence, this revision petition:

¶24

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenged the finding of conviction and submits that the occurrence pertains to the year 1988 and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, the age of the petitioner was around 65 years. The petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of around five months out of the total sentence of six months. Hence, under such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and under Rule 50(1) of the PFA Rules, 1955, be reduced to the period undergone by him.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the instant case.

¶26

This Court perused the evidence available on the record as well as the judgments passed by the Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the incident pertains to the year 1988 and at the time of passing of the impugned judgment by the Trial Court in the year 2004, the age of the appellant was around 65 years and total sentence of six months simple imprisonment was awarded to him and he has suffered almost five months sentence and now his age must be around 85 years. Looking to the fact that the petitioner already suffered mental

[2024:RJ-JP:25732]

[CRLR-115/2005]

(4 of 4)

agony, trauma of protracted trial, thus looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Trial Court, for the above offences, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court, is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the sentence of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 and under Rule 50(1) of the PFA Rules, 1955 read with 7/16 of The Act of 1954. The sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The amount of fine is here maintained and three months time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount of fine before the Trial Court. The petitioner is on bail, he is not required to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶32

The petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with a surety bond of like amount in accordance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. before the trial Court within a period of three months from today to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave to Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioner on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Apex Court.

¶33

Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

MR/7

Kalu Lal v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalu Lal v. State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Bhargav @ Jeetu Son of Kailash Chandra Dakot, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithun @ Chuuni S/O Khemchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjan S/O Karna, Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh S/O Late Shri Pema Mehrat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bandhu Vs State and Anr.

Hari Singh Royal S/O Shri Hanumanaram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan