Dismissed

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019CRLR/1297/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision dismissed. Hon'ble Court held that the incident occurred after the 1976 amendment to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, making the six-month minimum sentence applicable and non-reducible, contrary to the revisionist's reliance on a later Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

Sentence cannot be reduced as the amended provision requiring six months imprisonment applies; bail bonds cancelled; arrest ordered.

Virendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1297 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Virendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Desh Ratan Chaudhary,Akhilesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, Advocate for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 08.05.1990 and 27.09.1991. The Judicial Magistrate Second (Economic Offences), Agra vide order dated 08.05.1990 convicted revisionist and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1954”). Thereagainst, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1990 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred present revision.

¶7

Learned counsel for revisionist contended that punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- be reduced and in this regard reliance is placed on Supreme Court's decision in Laskari Ram vs. State of H.P., 2001 SCC (Cri) 111 wherein Supreme Court has reduced the imprisonment to three months with fine of Rs. 500/- observing that under Act, 1954 minimum sentence is three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-.

¶8

I find that provision of Section 16(1)(a) as amended on 01.01.1976 provides minimum sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In the present case incident is of 28.12.1977,

¶9

therefore, amended provision which provides minimum sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment will apply in the present case, which cannot be reduced.

¶10

No other point has been argued.

¶11

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶12

The accused, Virendra, is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause him to be arrested and lodge in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. The compliance shall be prepared within two months.

¶13

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.7.2019 AK

Virendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunita Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Nisha Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nath Vs State and Others

P.M. and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sughar Singh Vs State of U.P.