1
S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.215/1994
Gamera
VS.
State of Rajasthan
-----
DATE OF ORDER : 09.11.2009.
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J.
Mr. M.K. Garg, for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajlaxmi, Public Prosecutor.
The accused-petitioner, a member of Schedule Caste, is
convicted by the trial court i.e. the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chittorgarh for violation of Rajasthan Guest Control
Order, 1978 read with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities
Act. The trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of
six months with fine of Rs.2000/- as sentence. The appellate
court affirmed the conviction and sentence by judgment dated
23.5.1994.
While giving challenge to the orders aforesaid, the only
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner is that admittedly the act of the accused is an
outcome of social evils and therefore, the courts below must
have extended the benefit of probation to him.
Per contra, the stand of learned Public Prosecutor is that
stringent action are necessary to curb social evils and therefore,
whatever sentence has been awarded by the trial court is
adequate and no interference is required to be made by this
2
Court while exercising power under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C.
I have examined the orders impugned and record of the
courts below.
The factual matrix of the case is that on 9.6.1978, the
Enforcement Officer alongwith police-force made a raid in Village
Negadia, Tehsil Dugla, Distt. Chittorgarh whereon he recovered
certain food articles purported to be prepared for organizing
“death feast” as a consequent to death of accused’s father.
Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the accused-petitioner
before the competent court for offences punishable under
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of
provisions of Guest Control Order, 1978.
During the course of trial, the Enforcement Officer, Police
Personnel and two independent witnesses were examined in
support of prosecution case. The independent witnesses were
declared hostile and by relying upon the statements given by
the Enforcement Officer and the Police Personnel, the trial court
convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced for six months’
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-.
Before the appellate court, the case of the accused-
petitioner was that there was no adequate evidence to held him
guilty for the alleged charge. It was also contended that the
death feast is a social evil and there was no intention on the
part of the accused-petitioner to commit any offence. If the
3
prosecution story be accepted as it is then to the act in question
was nothing but observance of a ritual, that become a social evil
by flux of time. The appellate court negativated both the
contentions and rejected the appeal.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner is that now the Ordinance of 1978 has already
been repealed and in totality of the facts it shall not be proper to
remit the petitioner to undergo remaining sentence.
It is the position admitted that the accused-petitioner is
coming from lower echelons of society, where the social evils are
prevailing in the name of social rituals. True it is, necessary
steps are always desired to curb social evils, but at the same
time it is also required to be kept in mind that the social evils are
not individual acts but are outcome of prevailing social
circumstances. The social evils are required to be dealt with
stringently, with an attitude and approach of reforms.
In the present case, the accused-petitioner was found
guilty for holding ‘mratiyu bhoj’ in excess to the number
prescribed under the Order of 1978. Such kind of rituals are
quite common in lower echelons of society. A person makes all
efforts to adhere these rituals and gather satisfaction of
discharging social responsibility. To curb such tendency,
reprimand, censure or the extension of probation are reformative
mode.
In the case in hand, I do not find any reason for not
4
extending such benefit. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction
of the petitioner, I consider it appropriate to confine the
sentence only to the extend of fine of Rs.2000/-.
Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in-part. The
conviction of the petitioner is maintained. However, the sentence
part is modified and is confined only to the extent of fine of
Rs.2000/-.
(GOVIND MATHUR)J.
Rm/-