Partly allowed

Budhraj v. State

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018CRLR/348/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision dismissed the challenge to the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the High Court allowed the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the revisionist, on condition of depositing the fine of Rs. 1,000 for his immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; release from jail upon deposit of fine Rs. 1,000.

Budhraj Vs State — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 348 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Budhraj Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B. Bhai,R.B.Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 20.02.1991 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1986, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment passed by Special Juducial Magistrate, Fatehpur vide judgement and order dated 21.04.1986 in Case No. 313 of 1986, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along-with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

¶7

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 submits that the FIR was served upon the revisionist on 27.05.1982 so that the time about 2 and a half years has been lapsed so the question of Central Food Laboratories does not arise. 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 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.

¶8

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

¶9

below:-

¶10

"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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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."

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Sartaj

Budhraj v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhraj 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Din Mohd. and Others Vs State

Daya Ram Alias Dasai Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Kapoor Vs Jugal Kishore and Ors.