Partly allowed

Veer Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018CRLR/99/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the High Court of UP partly allowed the revision. While maintaining the conviction, the court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, contingent upon the deposit of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to the period already undergone, subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1,000.

Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 99 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Chaturvedi,M.K. Tripathi,T K Mishra 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 8.1.1992 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Jhansi in Appeal No. 117 of 1990, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of one year passed by Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jhansi vide judgement and order dated 3.7.1990 in Case No. 70 of 1990, under section 2(a) (m) read with section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along-with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jhansi has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. He further submitted that provision of section 11(1)(B)(C) of the Act has not been complied with and there is no independent witness to prove the sale of milk. He further submitted that as per allegation, the revisionist was selling milk to a shopkeeper, but police has failed to produce shopkeeper before court or to make him as witness while taking 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.

¶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

¶9

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.

¶10

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:-

¶11

"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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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."

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.11.2018 Arvind/Rmk/-

Veer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Singh 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P.

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

Kailash Vs State

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another