Partly allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022CRLR/2669/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the criminal revision against a sentence of imprisonment imposed over 30 years ago for food adulteration. The court directed the revisionist to deposit an additional fine to secure bail, apply for sentence commutation, and granted a 6-month stay on surrender pending government action.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon deposit of Rs.10,000 additional fine and furnishing bond; stay on surrender for six months while applying for commutation of sentence.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2669 of 2001

¶3

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- H.P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2001 passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur/FTC IInd, Jaunpur , whereby dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.26 of 1989 affirming the judgment and order dated 12.09.1989 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaunpur in Criminal Case No.89 of 1986 (State Vs. Anil Kumar) convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 (i) (A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S. Machchli Shahar, District Jaunpur and sentencing him to undergo for six months R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of one month.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist does not challenge his conviction, but submits that he is ready and willing to apply for commutation of sentence on the condition of further deposit, if any, in lieu of awarded sentence.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submits that P.F.A. Act provides for a minimum sentence of 6 months for conviction and the sentence is proportionate to the charge established. He also submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this revision pending and it be disposed of by giving appropriate directions.

¶9

It is not disputed that the alleged offence took place on 25.10.1985, when the Food Inspector suspected that the Arhar Pulse ( Daal ) was adulterated and a sample was taken, thereafter, sample was sent for chemical analyst report and it was found that the samples was coloured with prohibited Mitanial Yellow Coltar. The revisionist has faced prosecution for almost 38 years. However, the Court cannot be oblivious that an offence under the P.F.A. Act has serious ramifications in the society, which cannot be lightly ignored, but at the same time to direct him after 36 years to serve out his remainder sentence is the other extreme. Learned A.G.A. is right in his submission that this Court cannot tinker, where minimum

¶10

sentence is provided under a statute like the P.F.A. Act, 1954.

¶11

The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad, (2009) 12 SCC 646 held in paras-4 and 5 thereof as under:

¶12

"4. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was inter alia observed as follows: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 15)

¶13

"15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not inclined to modify the sentence by passing an order of the nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair where this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a sentence of fine and directed that State to exercise its powers under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. In the instant case the appellant has been sentence to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant."

¶14

"5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The sentence as imposed by the trial court is restored. However, since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if the respondent-accused moves the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence during which period it shall be open to him to move the appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate Government the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence."

¶15

The position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the allegations against the revisionist, was that Arhar Pulse ( Dal ) sample was allegedly found to be samples was coloured with prohibited Mitanial Yellow Coltar than the prescribed standards. Admittedly, such a sample could not be said to be spurious or toxic so as to become a health hazard for the consumer. However, at the same time, this Court cannot be

¶16

oblivious of the fact that once the Act provides for a minimum sentence of six months, this Court cannot tinker with the said sentence by further reducing it. Learned A.G.A. could not point any distinguishing feature, which would make the ratio laid in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) inapplicable on the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also expressed his willingness that the revisionist is prepared to apply for commutation of sentence under Section 433 of the Code and is also willing to deposit additional fine, if any.

¶17

The revision is disposed of subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) Order of conviction is maintained;

¶19

(ii) In case, the revisionist deposits a sum of Rs.10,000/- as additional fine before the Trial Court within 6 weeks from today, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bond with two sureties of the like amount, each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, and simultaneously he would apply before the appropriate government for commutation of his sentence;

¶20

(iii) The State government shall be obliged to consider the request for commutation of sentence in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above, within a further period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order along with the request for commutation.

¶21

(iv) For a period of 6 months, revisionist need not surrender to undergo remaining sentence. If no orders for commutation in favour of revisionist is passed by the appropriate government, within the aforesaid period (3 months), the revisionist would be obliged to surrender only upon refund of fine deposited by him.

¶22

(v) The competent authority would strictly adhere to the time schedule and to the conditions stipulated hereinabove.

¶23

(vi) However, in case of default on the part of revisionist in complying with this order, he shall forthwith surrender after 6 weeks to serve out his remainder sentence.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned and to the State Government for compliance and necessary action.

¶25

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 S.Ali

¶26

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.07.22 16:36:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Wasim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mirajul Hasaon Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Mohniti Raina and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jawahir and 3 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another