[2026:RJ-JP:165]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1184/2008 Shyam Sunder S/o Ghanshyam Pujari, R/o Dob, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Heramb Saraswat Mr. Utkarsh Goyal Ms. Chanchal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A.

Mr. Onkar Singh, Dy. G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

06/01/2026

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 – Shyam Sunder against the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2005 (Shyam Sunder vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and Order dated 28.01.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 1043/2003 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam Sunder), 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 six months simple imprisonment and to pay 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 the complainant K.P. Sharma, the then Food Inspector, Gangapur City submitted a complaint to the effect that on 30.04.1998 at around 7.00 AM when the petitioner was selling milk, a sample was taken and sent to the laboratory for testing. As per the test report the said sample was found adulterated. On that basis, a case was registered against the accused-petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of P.F.A Act. The statement of allegation 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 28.01.2005 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 28.01.2005, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. 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.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1998 i.e. more than 27 years ago; accused-petitioner was 38 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 65 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 27 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 10 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.

6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haripada Das vs. State of W.B. & anr. reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678, and the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. Union Territo