[2025:RJ-JP:46000] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1115/2008 Umesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nandlal Sharma, R/o Purohit Mohalla, Lakkad Bazar, Kaman, District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitender Singh Rathore, A.G.A HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 14/11/2025 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 – Umesh Kumar Sharma against Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 04/2008 (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which the criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the judgment and Order dated 13.02.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no. 2, Alwar (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 217/2005 (273/2000) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Umesh Kumar Sharma), 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' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. [2025:RJ-JP:46000] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1115/2008] 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 25.07.2000 Kunj Bihari (PW-1), Food Inspector, submitted a complaint against the accused-petitioner, to the effect that on 03.05.2000 at around 9.30 AM, he in capacity of food inspector, reached at 19 Shivaji Park, Alwar to inspect the M/S Royal Ice Cream Factory where the accused-petitioner was present, as the owner of the said ice cream factory. Upon inspection of ice cream available in the factory, a suspicion of being adulterated was raised. He in order to take sample purchased one litre of ice cream frozen in a carton box after payment of Rs. 35/- to the accused-petitioner, out of which samples were taken and sent to laboratory for testing. The test report was received and the said samples were found to be adulterated. 3. Thereafter a case 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 afforesaid offence, who denied for the same and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 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 13.02.2007, accused-petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 09.09.2008 dismissing the appeal and [2025:RJ-JP:46000] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1115/2008] 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 2000 i.e. more than 25 years ago; accused-petitioner was 25 years young boy at the time of incident and now he is around 50 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 25 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 17 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 the case of Satish Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (Criminal Revision No. 211/2002) decided on 06.05.2009, Narinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana (MANU/PH/1056/2008), and [2025:RJ-JP:46000] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1115/2008] the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Ramakaran vs. State of Rajasthan through PP (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1034/2007) decided on 01.08.2025, Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 43/1999) decided on 24.02.1999, Laxmi Narain vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision No. 495/1972) decided on 26.08.1977. 8. Per contra, learned Government Advocate while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 10. Since the revision petition against conviction part of the accused-petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused- petitioner are maintained. 11. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 25 years [2025:RJ-JP:46000] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1115/2008] young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 25 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record. 12. 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…” 13. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. Therefore, considering the mitigating circumstance in this case that the [2025:RJ-JP:46000] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1115/2008] petitioner is undergoing agony of this protracted trial for the last 25 years, he can be compensated suitably by reducing the substantive sentence imposed upon him to the one already undergone by him. 14. Consequently, the judgments dated 09.09.2008 and 13.02.2007 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections Section 7/16 of PFA Act are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled. 15. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 16. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J Ritu/91