[2025:RJ-JP:47258]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1033/2008 Kailash Chand S/o Ramnath, R/o Darampura, P.O. Bishanpura, Tehsil and District Dausa ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, Dy. G.A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

21/11/2025

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 – Kailash Chand against the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Dausa, District- Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2007 (Kailash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused- petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and Order dated 14.11.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, District- Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 214/03 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Kailash Chand), 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 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 21.09.1996, complainant Jagdish Narayan Chaturvedi (PW-2), the then Food Inspector submitted a complaint to the effect that on 14.06.1996 at around 8.15 AM when the complainant reached Bhankhri road, Dausa, accused-petitioner was bringing milk in two tanks on a motorcycle for selling to public. On a suspicion, sample was taken and sent to the laboratory for testing. As per the test report the said sample was found adulterated. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the accused- petitioner for the offence under section 7/16 of P.F.A Act. 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 14.11.2006 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 14.11.2006, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 28.08.2008 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 1996 i.e. more than 29 years ago; accused-petitioner was 31 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 61 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 29 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 20 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 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 th