Keshrimal Kothari vs State Of Rajasthan

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 26.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the sentence awarded by trial court for offence under Section 21/92 but maintained the fine amount of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' S.I. and also set aside the sentence awarded by trial court for offence under Section 29/92 but imposed a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's S.I. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 04.01.2006 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No.3, Jodhpur whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offence under Sections 21/92 and 29/92 of Factories Act and sentenced as under :

Sec. 21/92 of Factories Act

Three month's S.I. along with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of fine to undergo three month's S.I.

Sec. 29/92 of Factories Act

Three month's S.I.

Vide order dated 24.04.2008, this Court ordered that the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- has already been deposited by the petitioner and out of which Rs.20,000/- be given to LRs of deceased Hem Raj Singh and rest of the amount of Rs.10,000/-shall remain deposited in the court.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant court has rightly set aside the sentence passed by the trial court but committed error in imposing the fine for the offences under the Factories Act. Counsel further submits that looking to the evidence recorded by the trial court, no offence under the Factories Act has been made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner may be acquitted from the aforesaid offences.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, which warrant no interference.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned judgment and gone through the record of the case.

The learned appellate court has considered the each and every aspect of the matter as well as discussed the evidence so recorded during the course of the trial and has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The fine amount imposed by the appellate court has already been deposited by the petitioner. In such circumstances, no interference is called for.

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.