Allowed

Dori Lal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2018CRLR/1872/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision was filed to reduce the sentence for food adulteration occurring 22 years prior. The single judge affirmed the conviction but exercised power under precedent to reduce the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while increasing the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to period undergone; fine increased to Rs. 5,000 with default imprisonment.

Dori Lal Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1872 of 2002

¶3

Revisionist :- Dori Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2002 (Dori Lal Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh in Case No. 158 of 1996 (State Vs. Dori Lal). By the order dated 20.3.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh revisionist/accused (Dori Lal) was convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months.

¶7

As per prosecution version on 6.10.1995 at about 6:00 AM revisionist/accused (Dori Lal) was apprehended by the Food Inspector and from his possession adulterated milk was recovered. PW-1 N.D. Sharma, Food Inspector has proved the prosecution version. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 10.11.1995, the alleged milk was found to be below standard. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed by the Magistrate.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that occurrence has taken place 22 years ago. Revisionist has completed about 2 months of his sentence, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶10

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarali K. Tejani vs Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and another, 1974 SCR (2) 154 , held that Court has jurisdiction to bring down the sentence to less than the minimum prescribed under Section 16 (1) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 provided there are adequate and special reason in that behalf.

¶11

From the perusal of judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and that of the appellate court, I find no illegality in the well-reasoned and well-observed judgment of conviction against the revisionist passed by the courts below.

¶12

From the perusal of the report dated 24.4.2018 of Chief Judicial

¶13

Magistrate, Aligarh, it reveals that revisionist-accused is in custody. Recovered adulterated milk was primary food which was adulterated by human agency. The occurrence has taken place 22 years ago.

¶14

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶15

Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed and the conviction of the revisionist is affirmed. However, sentence awarded to the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone but revisionist is directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶16

After depositing fine, the revisionist, if not detained in any other case, shall be released forthwith. Certified copy of this order be sent to the courts below for necessary compliance. Office is directed to return the lower court record without any delay.

¶17

Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Jaswant

Dori Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dori Lal 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

Bhola Nath Tewari Vs Radhey Shyam and Ors.

U.Mishra Vs State

Ram Dawar Dwivdi Vs State of U.P. and Another

S.P. Nanda and Another Vs State

Sushil Vs State and Other

Shahid Vs State of U.P.