In a revision against a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused on bail.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited.
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. - 26
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 735 of 1989
Revisionist :- Pramod Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar,J P Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 1.5.1989 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1988, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months passed by Munsif Magistrate-I, Muzaffarnagar vide judgement and order dated 5.5.1988 in Case No. 64 of 1988, under section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Munsif Magistrate-I, Muzaffarnagar has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. He further submitted that mandatory provision of section 7/16 of the Act has not been complied with and there is no independent witness to prove the sale of milk. The prosecution has failed to prove that the public analyst has delivered the report to the local health authority within 48 days from the date of receipt of sample. 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 of Rs. 1,000.
Order Date :- 22.11.2018 Sartaj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to reduction of sentence to the period already undergone on bail grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Lal vs. State of UttarakhandReferred¶8
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
Pramod Kumar
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
