Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7954 of 2025

Vinod

	Versus .....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Dev Prakash Sharma, Priyanka Devi : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 91

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the accused-revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.11.2025, passed by Special Judge ( E.C. Act),/Additional Sessions Judge, District Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2023, confirming the order dated 8.6.2023, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.1, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 2300 of 2010 (State Vs. Vinod) under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Kotwali Mahavan, District Mathura, whereby the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist submits that the accusedrevisionist has not been convicted previously for any offence and he is the first time offender. He at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his submission in the criminal revision only with respect to the order of sentence.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the accused- revisionist, the criminal revision is dismissed so far as it relates to the impugned judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned trial court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction , passed by

¶11

CRLR No. 7954 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

the learned trial court is hereby, upheld.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist further submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionist has not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).

¶15

The trial court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., while sentencing the accusedrevisionist.The trial court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C., or the provisions of the Act, 1958.

¶16

Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it cannot be sustained.

¶17

Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.

¶18

The accused-revisionist has statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned trial court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C or provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned trial court should have recorded reasons for the same.

¶19

Learned AGA, appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that the accused-revisionist is the first time offender and was not previously

¶20

CRLR No. 7954 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

convicted in any other case. He further submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C, considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accusedrevisionist and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.

¶23

In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this criminal revision is, accordingly dismissed by upholding the conviction of the accusedrevisionist. However, he is granted benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-revisionist is released on probation. The accused-revisionist is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. After release, the accused-revisionist shall file personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ and he shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. The bond shall be for one year.

¶24

In case of breach of any such condition, the accused-revisionist will subject himself to undergo the sentences before the trial court as per law. The accused- revisionist shall file the bond within a period of one month from today.

¶25

Let a copy of this judgment as well as the record, if any, be transmitted to the concerned trial court forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶26

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶27

November 27, 2025 sfa/

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukeem and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulab Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another