Dismissed

Ramjeet Gupta v. State

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2018CRLR/1359/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court held that procedural defenses regarding independent witnessing and notice issuance were invalid, andantenated that leniency due to delay is inappropriate for offenses harming public health.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed; revisionist, almost having served sentence, to be released forthwith upon completion.

Ramjeet Gupta Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 17.9.2018 Delivered on 20.9.2018

¶3

Court No. - 41

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1359 of 1991

¶5

Revisionist :- Ramjeet Gupta Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- C.P. Tripathi,R.K. Agrahari,Tej Bhan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Tej Bhan Pandey, Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. Perused the record.

¶8

The revisionist-accused has preferred this revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. assailing judgment dated 27.4.1988 passed by Munsif-1^st , Lower Criminal Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 22/86, Police Station Khuthan, District Jaunpur convicting him under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1954") and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default to deposit fine, to undergo for two months' simple imprisonment. He has also assailed judgment dated 5.10.1991 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988 confirming conviction and sentence by Trial Court, as detailed above.

¶9

The prosecution case is that Sri Samar Bahadur Yadav, Food Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Khuthan on 1.7.1983 at 5:45 P.M. inspected the shop of accused Ramjeet Gupta and after giving introduction, he purchased 600 gm. 'Lemonchoose' paying Rs.6.75. He gave notice of Form 6 and obtained signature on second copy as well as on purchase receipt. Food Inspector also obtained signatures of witness Mantoo Ram, Health Inspector and one independent witness namely, Surendra Pratap Singh on notice form No. 6-Kha and purchase receipt. Other shopkeepers refused to become witness. He distributed the sample in three parts in small

¶10

¶11

bottles and sent one bottle with one copy of sample muhar memorandum to the public analyst. Two other bottles were kept in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur. According to report No. 10011 dated 6.8.1983 of Public Analyst, mixture of Arameen, Rodameen-B and Melachite(prohibited Koltar colour were found present in the sample. After giving notice alongwith report of Public Analyst to the accused to the effect that accused may get examined the other sample from Director,Central Laboratory, Calcutta, Food Inspector obtained written sanction from the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur and filed complaint against the accused in the Court.

¶12

Statement of Food Inspector was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and charge was framed under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Trial Court examined P.W.-1 Samar Bahadur Yadav (Food Inspector) and P.W.-2 Harihar Chaubey,Clerk (Food).

¶13

Accused Ramjeet Gupta denied the factum of collection of sample in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and deposed that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity. He examined D.W.-1 Surendra Pratap Singh in his support.

¶14

The Trial Court believed prosecution case and convicted revisionist under Section 7/16 of Act, 1954 and awarded punishment of three months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. The accused-revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1988 but the same has been dismissed by impugned judgment dated 5.10.1991.

¶15

Sri Tej Bhan Pandey, learned counsel appearing for accusedrevisionist, contended that there was no independent witness justifying collection of sample by Food Inspector after following procedure laid down under Act, 1954 as well as the rules framed thereunder and hence there is complete non-compliance of Section 10(7) of Act, 1954. He further contended that it is an old matter. The accused has already deposited fine of Rs. 500/- and has also

¶16

¶17

undergone more than two and half months in jail, therefore, taking a lenient view in the matter punishment be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶18

Learned AGA on the contrary supported the judgments of court below and contended that concurrent findings have been recorded by courts below, hence no ground for interference in criminal revision is made out.

¶19

First this Court propose to consider the question, whether there is non-compliance of Section 10(7) of Act, 1954 and if so its effect on the conviction and sentence of accused-revisionist.

¶20

Independent witness Surendra Pratap Singh has been examined before the Court. Though he was produced as prosecution witness but he was examined as D.W.-1. He admitted his signatures on receipt (Ext.-Ka-1) and Form-6 notice (Ext.-Ka-2). Signatures of Mantoo Ram are also on receipt (Ext.-Ka-1) and Form-6 notice (Ext.-Ka-2). Thus, it is proved that sample was taken in presence of D.W.-1 Surendra Pratap Singh and compliance of Section 10(7) of Act has been done.

¶21

The contention, therefore, that there was no independent witness to justify collection of sample by Inspector and thus there is non-compliance of Section 10(7) of Act, 1954, is rejected.

¶22

So far as contention of non-compliance of 13(2) of Act is concerned, from the statement of P.W.-2 Harihar Chaubey it is proved that after institution of complaint, Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur had sent letter (Ext.Ka-10) alongwith report of Public Analyst on 5.12.1987 by registered post(Ext. Ka-11). Registered letter was not returned back in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur. Hence it is proved that compliance of 13(2) of Act has been done.

¶23

The next submission is that the incident is of 1983 and more than 35 years have passed, hence punishment awarded to accused should be reduced to the period already undergone or only fine.

¶24

¶25

Adulteration in food article has a direct adverse consequence to the health of public. 'Lemonchoose is mostly consumed by children, they have very feeble physique and consumption of substandard coloured lemonchoose might have caused ill health or poor growth to many small children. The adulterators, therefore, do commit a much heinous and serious crime to the Society as a whole and deserve no sympathy.

¶26

In the present case, the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. Accused has been found guilty of adulteration in lemonchoose. Court below has already taken a lenient view by imposing punishment of only three month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-. Attempt to grant any indulgence in such a matter, when the Court below has already taken a lenient view in awarding punishment, would be nothing but mockery of justice.

¶27

Society had a confidence in the system of justice and is waiting that persons found guilty of committing henious crimes are punished appropriately and suitably, even if punishment is executed with lot of delay since Society has no control over delay occurring in Court but has concrete faith in the system of justice. Therefore, it is not deterred by delay but is satisfied even when justice comes highly belated, provided it is not diluted and lean in favour of accused so as to treat him like a victim ignoring loss suffered by actual victim.

¶28

Even otherwise, both the Courts have given concurrent finding of facts and the view taken by both the Courts are plausible view. Hence no interference is called for. In this case, already less punishment has been awarded.

¶29

In the matter of awarding punishment multiple factors have to be considered by this Court. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of individuals as well as property of individuals is one of the essential functions of the State. The administration of criminal law justice is a mode to

¶30

¶31

achieve this goal. The inherent cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice is that the punishment imposed on an offender should be adequate so as to serve the purpose of deterrence as well as reformation. It should reflect the crime, the offender has committed and should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Sentencing process should be sterned so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him roaming free in the society not to indulge in criminal activities but also to give a message to society that an offence if committed, would not go unpunished. The offender should be suitably punished so that society also get a message that if something wrong has been done, one will have to pay for it in proper manner irrespective of time lag.

¶32

Further sentencing process should be sterned but tampered with mercy where-ever it is so warranted. How and in what manner element of leniency shall prevail, will depend upon multifarious reasons including the facts and circumstances of individual case, nature of crime, the matter in which it was committed, whether preplanned or otherwise, the motive, conduct, nature of weapon used etc. But one cannot be lost sight of the fact that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system as it is bound to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society cannot long endure such serious threats. It is duty of the court to give adequate, proper and suitable sentence having regard to various aspects, some of which, are noticed above.

¶33

In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another Vs. State of Gujrat, 2009 (7) SCC 254 , the Court confirmed that:

¶34

"any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system". (Emphasis added)

¶35

¶36

21. In Jameel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (12) SCC 532 , the Court held that:

¶37

"It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence."

¶38

In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012 (8) SCC 734 , the Court said that:

¶39

"The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored."

¶40

In Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) JT 444, the court said that:

¶41

"Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence"

¶42

In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2013 (9) SCC 516 , the Court observed that:

¶43

"We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment". (Emphasis added)

¶44

¶45

The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained.

¶46

In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise.

¶47

The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1627 (S.C.).

¶48

In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct.

¶49

In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC

¶50

¶51

585 reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact.

¶52

In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9) SCC 631 the Court said:

¶53

"The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."

¶54

In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004(7) SCC 665 , in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said:

¶55

"4. Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."

¶56

In view of above exposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of revisionist.

¶57

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶58

¶59

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶60

Revisionist-Ramjeet Gupta is in jail and is reported to have almost served out sentence except 3-4 days. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur shall ensure that after completion of sentence, he shall be released forthwith.

¶61

Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the lower Court within 24 hours. Compliance report be submitted within one month. Office to keep said report on record.

¶62

Order Date :- 20.9.2018 P.P.

Ramjeet Gupta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjeet Gupta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chunni Lal and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Niranjan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Hari Bheji Vs Khatun Begam and Others

Deena Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gagan Singh @ Ratnesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Another