[2025:RJ-JP:37055]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 424/2005 Dhuraram Son of Shri Ramdhan Yadav, Resident of Dhani Nadako Tan, Paragpura, Teh. Kotputli, Distt. Jaipur.

(Accused in Central Jail Jaipur)

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

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Prosecutor.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

10/09/2025

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1996 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year

2005.

2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.21/2001, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 28.03.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli in Criminal Case No.128/1996, whereby the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Under Section 7(1)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:-

Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days additional imprisonment.

Under Section 7(3)/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:-

Three Months Simple Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7 days additional imprisonment.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 26.08.2005 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence Application)

No.106/2005.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionis-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 4 months & 4 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

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…”

7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine of imposed upon him within a period