Partly allowed

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018CRLR/1525/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision against a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the revisionist, subject to deposit of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1,000, after which release from jail shall follow.

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1525 of 1988 Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- R.S.Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶4

The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 24.9.1988 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1986, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur vide judgement and order dated 6.6.1986 in Case No. 1341 of 1983, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along-with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

¶5

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. He further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 10(7) of the Act and no independent witness has been examined in this case. He further submits that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is not a previous convict. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist Radhey Shyam is in jail and has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶6

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. He also invited attention of the Court to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the judgement of Nand Lal's case (Supra), which are quoted below:-

¶7

"4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant urged that the Appellant had been wrongly convicted of the offence alleged against him since the

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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."

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

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 of Rs. 1,000. After depositing the said amount, he shall be released from the jail forthwith.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.11.2018 Arvind

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P.

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

Kailash Vs State

Ajay Prakash @ Chunne and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another