The High Court extended the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revisionist convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, citing the non-obstante clause in the latter Act and the petitioner's clean record.
Sentence modified to probation with a bond and two sureties for two years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Reserved on 17.11.2022 Delivered on 02.12.2022
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 906 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ram Dutt Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Siddharth Sinha,Amrish Sahai,Raghubans Sahai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1 . This criminal revision is filed by Revisionist-Ram Dutt, who was convicted by judgment and order dated 17.10.1996 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Fatehpur under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1954”) whereby revisionist was sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default sentence of three months additional simple imprisonment. Revisionist is further aggrieved that his appeal against aforesaid order being Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1996 was dismissed by judgment and order dated 09.05.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
2 . Sri Siddharth Sinha, learned counsel for revisionist has limited his argument to quantum of sentence placing reliance on two judgments of Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2021) 2 SCC 763 and State through SP, New Delhi vs. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590 and contended that since conviction is under Act, 1954, i.e., enacted before Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1958”), therefore, benefit of Act, 1958 could be granted to revisionist considering the circumstances of case that alleged offence was occurred way back in the year 1991, i.e., about 31 years ago and allegation was adulteration in milk that milk fat was found
2
67% less, presently revisionist is aged about 55 years and there is no reported criminal act after the criminal act involved in present case.
4 . I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
5 . In order to consider the legal submissions in the light of facts and circumstances of present case following paragraphs of Lakhvir Singh (supra) are necessary to refer hereinafter:
“14. The legal position insofar as invocation of Section 4 is concerned has been analysed in Ishar Das vs. State of Punjab elucidating that nonobstante clause in Section 4 of the Act reflected the legislative intent that provisions of the Act have effect notwithstanding any other law in force at that time. The observation in Ramji Missar (supra) was cited with approval to the effect that in case of any ambiguity, the beneficial provisions of the Act should receive wide interpretation and should not be read in a restricted sense.
“ 18. Saving of operation of certain enactments. — Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section 31 of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897 (8 of 1897), or sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), or of any law in force in any State relating to juvenile offenders or Borstal Schools.”
16 . Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’) prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of
3
the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab are in the same context.”
7 . In view of above, the conviction of revisionist is confirmed but without interfering with amount of fine the sentence is modified granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 that revisionist shall give a bond with two sureties each to ensure that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years from today.
4
Digitally signed by AWADESH KUMAR Date: 2022.12.02 17:09:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to a convicted person under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 despite the minimum sentence provision.
Whether the revocation of the Probation of Offenders Act requirements impacts the conviction or requires a separate legal proceeding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lakhvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and anotherApplied¶17
Lakhvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2021) 2 SCC 763 · Who else cites this
State through SP, New Delhi vs. Ratan Lal AroraRelied on¶17
State through SP, New Delhi vs. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590 · Who else cites this
Ishar Das vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
Ishar Das vs. State of Punjab
Ramji MissarReferred¶17
Ramji Missar
CCE vs. BahubaliReferred¶17
CCE vs. Bahubali
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram DasReferred¶17
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das
Joginder Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶17
Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ram Dutt
State of U.P.
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Parties & counsel
