[2025:RJ-JP:46524]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 538/2008 Santoki S/o Gordhan, aged 63 years, Resident of village Seeta, P.S. Weir, Distt. Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus State ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Timan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

18/11/2025

1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Santoki S/o Gordhan against Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bayana, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 27/02 (28/99) (Santoki vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and Order dated 08.06.1999 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 283/93 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Santoki), whereby the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 29.08.1992 at around 9.00 AM, Ramesh Chandra Sharma (PW-1), the then Food Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Bhusawar found the accused- Santoki Lal selling mixed cow and goat milk, whereas he was not having the license to sell the edible item. Two samples of the milk being sold were taken and the sealed samples were sent to the Laboratory vide Ex.P4. According to the testing report (Ex.P8) the said samples were found to be adulterated.

3. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the accused- petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of P.F.A Act. According to the second sample sent by the Laboratory at the request of the petitioner, it was also found to be adulterated.

Subsequently, the statement of allegations was read over to the accused- petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act, who denied for the same and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 08.06.1999 and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act, as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment & order of conviction and sentence dated 08.06.1999, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 20.05.2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not want to press instant revision petition challenging conviction part of judgments passed by the courts below and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1992 i.e. more than 33 years ago; accused-petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 78 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 33 years; accused-petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in custody for a period of 42 days, there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble