Dismissed

Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019CRLR/1255/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court held that since the awarded punishment was the minimum prescribed by the statute, it could not be reduced despite the revisionist's plea based on advanced age.

What did the court decide?

Bail bonds cancelled; revisionist to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve the sentence.

Ram Chandra Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1255 of 1997

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- A.K.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State are present.

¶6

This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.08.1995 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Criminal Case No. 1546 of 1990 convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. Thereagainst accused-revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1995 which has been dismissed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) vide judgment and order dated 24.09.1997. This revision has been filed challenging both the aforesaid orders.

¶7

Learned counsel for revisionist confined his argument by only stating that considering advanced age of revisionist and taking lenient view, punishment of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶8

However, I find no force in any of the above submission.

¶9

The revisionist has not shown that punishment, awarded by Court below, is unjust, arbitrary or otherwise illegal. On the contrary, I find that minimum punishment prescribed under Statute has been awarded, and hence the same cannot be reduced as held by Apex Court recent in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (2019) 4 SCC 125 observing as under: “… where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence.”

¶10

In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere on this score.

¶11

No other point has been argued.

¶12

The revision lacks merits. Dismissed.

¶13

The revisionist Ram Chandra is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out sentence passed against him. The compliance shall be reported within two months.

¶14

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 PS

Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chandra 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

Laxman and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sadiq Khoja and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Km. Bibbo Alias Partikchha and Others Vs Smt. Poonam Shukla and Others

Sundar Singh and Others Vs the Iiird a.S.Judge and Another

Rajbanshi and Others Vs State of U.P.

Indrajit Singh Vs Mohan Singh and Another