In a criminal revision under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the High Court allowed the appeal partly, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, subject to deposit of fined.
Maintaining conviction but reducing sentence to the period already undergone, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 120 of 1991
Revisionist :- Buddhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- H C Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Asif Hasan, learned amicus curaie for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 14.1.1991 passed by Special Judge, Bijnor in Appeal No. 62 of 1989, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment passed by Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bijnor vide judgement and order dated 30.11.1989 in Case No. 128 of 1986, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/-.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bijnor has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain as to what the analysis report on sample taken on 17.08.1982. It is next submitted that courts below have erred in holding that there is no breach of section 10/7 of P.F. Act. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist is on bail and has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on May 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
In support thereof, learned counsel for the revisionist has invited attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
the judgment of Nand Lal's Case (Supra), which are quoted below:-
"4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant urged that the Appellant had been wrongly convicted of the offence alleged against him since the mustard oil in question had been purchased by the Appellant from the open market and was not meant for human consumption, but to be used for lighting lamps during Deepawali. It may immediately be indicated that the said defence of the Appellant was not accepted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court or the High Court. Learned counsel then pleaded that since the incident is alleged to have taken place about 27 years ago, the sentence of the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In fact, notice was issued on 29th September, 2006, on the said ground.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place almost 27 years ago and the Appellant is now more than 70 years of age, suffering from several medical ailments, we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellant for reduction of his sentence.
6. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we allow the appeal to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, we reduce his sentence to the period already undergone."
Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionist, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine as awarded by court below.
Sri Asif Hasan, learned Amicus Curaie has rendered valuable assistance in deciding the revision, which was pending since long and, therefore, he is directed to be paid Rs. 8,000/- as his fees by the office of this Court as per Rules.
Order Date :- 7.12.2018 Sartaj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act stands sustainable.
Whether the appellant is entitled to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone based on precedents.
Whether the trial court erred in not examining witnesses or explaining the analysis report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Lal vs. State of UttarakhandRelied on¶10
Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180
Devendra in Jail Vs. StateReferred¶8
Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Buddhan
State Of U.P.
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Neeraj Tiwari
Parties & counsel
