[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 [2025:RJ-JP:47258] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1033/2008] 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 [2025:RJ-JP:47258] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1033/2008] 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 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:47258] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1033/2008] No. 495/1972) decided on 26.08.1977 and Pooran Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 978/2003) decided on 03.01.2024. 8. Per contra, learned Additional 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 31 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 29 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the [2025:RJ-JP:47258] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1033/2008] 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 petitioner is undergoing agony of this protracted trial for the last 29 years, he can be compensated suitably by reducing the [2025:RJ-JP:47258] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1033/2008] substantive sentence imposed upon him to the one already undergone by him. 14. Consequently, the judgments dated 28.08.2008 and 14.11.2006 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under 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 Gourav/92