Partly allowed

Ram Singh and Others v. State and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019CRLR/1857/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court maintained the conviction for selling adulterated milk but commuted the six-month rigorous imprisonment to three months, keeping the fine intact and the default clause, considering the long delay between the offence and the final order.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment; fine of Rs. 1000 and default clause maintained; period served set off.

Ram Singh and Others Vs State and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1857 of 1990

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Trivedi,Raghubir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A..

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16 November, 1990 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Agra dismissing the criminal appeal no. 201 of 1987 and confirmed the conviction and sentence dated 4.12.1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, City (II) Economic Offences Agra, in Criminal Case no. 3335/86 convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine he has been further directed to undergo two months additional imprisonment.

¶6

Brief facts of this case are as follows-:

¶7

On 30.5.1982 at about 11:15 a.m. Sri S.C. Upadhyay Food Inspector has taken the sample of milk from the revisionist, who was found selling milk. Food Inspector had taken the sample and after completing all the necessary formalities he sent the sample to Public Analyst for test, who has reported that the sample was adulterated and was below standard. On the application of the revisionist the sample of milk was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The Central Food Laboratory also found the sample adulterated. Charge was framed against the accused, who denied the allegations. The prosecutions examined certain witnesses in support of the case. As there was some evidence against him, the accused was therefore, called upon to lead the evidence in defence.

¶8

The learned trial court after scrutinizing the circumstances, convicted the accused and directed him to suffer relevant punishment. This judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been challenged in this revision..

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record..

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had been falsely implicated. There is also no compliance of under Section 13 (2) of the P.F. A. Act and Section 10 of the Act.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the courts below have wrongly and illegally convicted the applicant by not looking at the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, which in any case stipulates that upon the request and application for getting the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory

¶12

and immediate dispatch within a reasonable time is the intention of law, the despatch having made after three years for the negation of the entire case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently argued that there was admittedly a marginal difference of .5 in the report of the Central Food Laboratory and the possibility of the said marginal deficiency having resulted from either a much delayed examination of sample or on account of not adding required quantity of formaline cannot be ruled out hence the judgment and orders of the court below are liable to be set aside.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the lower appellate court has committed a manifest illegality by not considering the ground upon the which the conviction was assailed i.e. the non compliance of Section 7,9,10 and of Rule 7,9,17,18. It has also been contended that defence had successfully proved that proper charring was not done before collection of sample. The courts below have wrongly and illegally rejected the said evidence.

¶15

Though an attempt was made to argue that the sample was not adulterated but it is difficult to accept the said submission. Definition of adulteration has contained in Section 2(i.a) reads as under:-

¶16

(i.a) "adulterated" an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated."

¶17

(m)"if the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard or its constituents are present in quantities not within the prescribed limits of variability but which does not render it injurious to health."

¶18

Clause (M) postulates a situation whereof article falls below the prescribed standard, even if it is not injurious to health nevertheless the quality /purity of article were falls below the prescribed standard, it would be treated as adulterated.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to show that prescribed standard of milk falling below due to natural cause which is beyond the control of human agency.

¶20

These grounds taken by the revisionist during revisions has already been answered by the trial as well as appellate/Sessions Court. There is no other significant argument made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The other point which could have been raised by him had already been answered by the learned Magistrate Court as well as Appellate Court. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the learned appellate court.

¶21

Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has suffered the pain and agony of trial for more than 36 years because the alleged occurrence is of date 30.5.1982. It was prayed that the sentence of

¶22

imprisonment of the revisionist be commuted to fine.

¶23

In this case, it appears that the occurrence taken place on 30.5.1982 i.e. more than three decade back. He has already spent few days in jail after having been convicted by Appellate Court out of the awarded sentence of six months. Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that in compliance of non bailable warrant issued by this Court the revisionist is in jail since 16.3.2019. The offence discloses that he was found selling adulterated milk. Therefore, looking to the fact that during the trial and appellate stage, the accused/revisionist remained on bail. He did not commit any offence and he seems to have rooted well in society approximately 36 years down the line since commission of the offence, the ends of justice would be made if his sentence is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- only. The period served by revisionist will be set off in this sentence.

¶24

Conviction of the revisionist is maintained. His punishment is reduced to three month rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause is maintained.

¶25

The revision is disposed to the aforesaid extent.

¶26

The office is directed to transmit back the record of the Lower Court, if any, with a copy of judgment and order of this Court for immediate compliance.

¶27

O rder Date :- 5.4.2019

¶28

A. Pt. Singh

Ram Singh and Others v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh and Others v. State and Others

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

Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Others. Vs State of U.P and Another

Raj Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another

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

Baij Nath Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Khan and Others Vs State and Others

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another