RAMDEV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 27th Nov., 1992 passed by the Special Court SC/ST Court, Kota by which the Court below upheld the conviction of the petitioner-accused under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but reduced the sentence to RI of three month's with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, but learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court delivered in the case of N.Sukumaran Nari Vs. Food Inspector, Maveliakara, (1997) 9 SCC 101 and this was followed by this Court in the case delivered in Prahalad Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1992(2) RCC 1195 , this is a fit case for commutation of sentence under Sec. 433 (c) Crimial P.C.

(2.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation of commission of offence against the petitioner is of the year 1981, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court vide order dated 24th Oct., 1989, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on 27th Nov., 1992 and after the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate court, the petitioner remained in custody from 27th Nov., 1992. He was released on furnishing bail bonds after the bail order passed by this court only on or after 19th Dec., 1992 as the bail bonds were submitted before the trial court on 19th Dec., 1992.

(3.) I have perused the facts of the case and it appears that accused was of the age of 52 years when the present revision petition was filed before this court and at the time of alleged commission of offence in the year 1981, he was young man of about 41 years. Now the accused is of the age of about more than 64 years. He faced the trial for long a period, he remained in custody for about 22 days and in view of giving an opportunity to correct himself, it will be not proper to send the accused behind the bar for an offence, which was committed about 23 years ago. It will be further worthwhile to mention here that in the trial court accused submitted an application for sending the sample for testing on 7th Aug., 1986, but that was rejected because of the absence of the counsel for the accused on 3rd Sep., 1986. It appears that because of lack of proper legal advise, the accused might have been deprived from taking a defence, which could have been a ground for acquittal also.