Held that conviction is maintained. Revisionist released on bail upon depositing additional fine and applying for commutation, to surrender only if commutation is denied within specified timelines.
Conviction maintained; released on bail upon deposit of Rs. 10,000 as additional fine and application for commutation.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191944
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1345 of 2009
Revisionist :- Dalel Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
"4. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was inter alia observed as follows: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 15)
"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."
"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."
(i) Order of conviction is maintained;
(ii) In case, the revisionist deposits 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;
(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.
(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.
(v) The competent authority would strictly adhere to the time schedule and to the conditions stipulated hereinabove.
(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.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023 M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to modify or maintain the six-month sentence imposed for food adulteration after 24 years of the offense.
Whether the revisionist can be released on bail upon deposit of additional fine and application for commutation of sentence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish PrasadApplied¶12
State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad : (2009) 12 SCC 646 · Who else cites this
Dayal Singh v. State of RajasthanExplained¶13
Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dalel Singh
State of U.P.
Another
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
