Dismissed

Dhani Ram Rathore v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2012CRR/191/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction for selling adulterated food. The court rejected the applicant's claim for ex parte opportunity to file a separate application for sentence commutation, directing him to surrender and face the remainder of the sentence.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; applicant directed to surrender for remaining sentence.

Dhani Ram Rathore Vs State of C.G. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN TH2 HIGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

(C.G.)

¶4

;SIHINAL RSVISION N0. '"/ /2002

¶5

GRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SSCTION 397/401 02? THE GODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE3URB, 1973 AGAIN3T TH3 ^ JUDGEM3NT .OF GOIWIGTION AtC' SEKTIENCE PASSED BY TH3 ADDITIONAL 3E.SSIONS JUDGE, SAKT-I (a^HATTISGARH) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.29/01 OlM DTD. 8/4/2002.

¶6

APPLIGAIMT ACGUSED Tln-JaTl)

¶7

Dhaniram Rathore, s/o. Hamprasad Kathore, aged about 57 years, r/o. village-Kesala, Police Stn. Baradwar, Tah. Sakti, DistrictJanjgir, Champ'a (Ghhattisgar'n) .

V3RSUS

NON-APPLIGANT

GO^JVICTION

U/s. 16(i) of Prevention of Food Aciulteration. Act.

¶12

Ihe State of Ghhattiscarh Through ; The Food Inspector Bilaspur, Distt:. Bilas'our.

¶13

S3NT33NG2

¶14

R.I. for 6_,,months and fine of Rs. 1000f-. In defauit of payment of £ine amount further R•I• for 3"month s .

¶15

¶16

iffi

¶17

Cr.R.No.lM/2002 Page 1 of3

¶18

•%

¶19

.yj' / ?€-/<y.< t.~).sN"'

¶20

HIGH COURT QF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR

¶21

Criminal Revision No.181 of 2002

Dhaniram Rathore

Versus

Non-apDlicant

The State of Chhattisgarh •

¶26

(Criminal Revision under Section 397^401 of Cr.P,

¶27

Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J. •

¶28

Mr.Vinod Tekam, counsel for the applicant. Mr.S.RJJaiswaf, Pane! Lawyer for She non-a^licant/Stste.

¶29

(Passed on 11th September, 2012)

¶30

By this revision, the appiicant has shailengsd legaiity and prcpriety of the judgment dated 8.4.2002 passed by the Addilionai Sessions Judge, Sakti, In Criminal Appeai No.29/2001, affirmlng the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Additionai Chief Judieiai Magistrate, Sakti, in Criminai Gase No.840/95, whereby & whereunder the iearned trial Court afSer hoidins the appiicant guiity for seiiing adulterated moong dal convlctsd him under Section 16(1) (a) of the Food Aduiteraiion Act, 1%4 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.l. for six months and flne of Rs.1000/-, in defauit of payment of fine to further uncfergo R.l. for three months.

¶31

i have heard tearned counssl for the parties, perysed the judgment impugned, judgment of the tria! Court and records of the Courts below.

¶32

Learned counsei for the appiicant submits that evidence of Food inspsctor J.P.S.Gour (PW-4) is not sufficient for drawing an inference that the applicant was seiiing adulteraied food moong ds/ and has committed the aforesaid offence, therefore, by eonvicting the appticant only on the basis of evidence of J.P.S.Gour (RA/-4) the Courts below have committed illegaiity. Leamed counsel further submte that ndice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been served upon the ap^icant

¶33

Cr.fi.No.l&l/20Q2 Page,2«f3-

¶34

¶35

after tapse offour years vide Ex.P/5, at that time edibie arttelewas not frt for anaiysis, therefore, by serving such notise and providing opportunity after lapse of four lapse, serious prejudice has been oaused to the appiicant. Learned counsei also subraits that the applicant is poor kirana shopkeeper, therefore, he be permitted to fil® appropriate appiicatlon under Section 433 (d) ofthe Cr.RC. <, ;

¶36

Leamed counsei piaeed reliance in the matter crf Ramji Chouhan v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) reported in 2012(3) C.G.L.J. 4S1 in whieh this Court has provided opportunity for filing approprtate applieaiion under Section 433 (d) of the Cr.P.C. for commutation of sentenee.

¶37

On the other hand, learned Panei Lawyer for ihe State oppsses the revision and summits that the applicant was in poasession of aduiterated moong dal, he is klrana shopkeeper and was setling adufterated material to the viliagers.

¶38

Evidence of Food inspecfor J.P.S.Gour (PW-4) Is sulTicient to prme the guilt of the applicant. On the basis of evldence of J.P.S.Gour (PVv'-4) the Courts beiow have convicied the appiicant. 1 do not find any iilegaiity in concurrent finding of fact of both the Gourte belpw.

¶39

After foiiowing the procedure prescribed the Food tnspecter J.P.S.Gour (PW-4) has purchased the food articte moong da! fr®mthe appiicant, who is kirana shopkeeper and running his shop dt viilage Keshia. Ssme has been sent for analysis and was faind adulterated vide Ex.P/11. Adulteration was edition of colour, although after fciur ysars oftaking sample notice under Section 13(2) oftheActhas been given to the appltoant, but he has appiied for analyste ofsampSe by Central Food Laboratory, but reason best Rnown to him tie has wjthdrawn his right on 18.4.2000 on the ground that alieged sample may have damaged. Sample has nd beenanalyzed by Central Food L^boratory on ihe ground of wiihdras/ai of his aforssalct ri^it. 1 do not find any lilegality In convjction ofthe appiicant under Section 16(1) (a) offheAct.

¶40

As regards the question ofsenience, the Courts below have imposed miriimum sentence. In Ramji Chouhan's case (supral, this Court has

¶41

CT.R.Nal9I/2(»2 Page3 of3

¶42

provided opportunlty for filing applieation under SecAion 433 (d) of the Cr.P.C. Para 5 ofthe said judgment reads as under:i

¶43

"5. Considering the circumstances of the csse, claina of the • appiicant, period of pendency of prosecution and natyrie of , food, the revision is partiy altowed. ConvictfoR of the applteant is herby maintained. However, sentence impoised : upon him is modified. He is hereby sentenced to pay fine p( , Rs.5,000/-, jn de?au!t additional Rl for two moaths, with a condition that jf the appiicant fiies appiication befbre the Court below that he wil! fi!e appropriate apiplicatioR,befQr&, the appropriate Govemment under clause (d) of Section s 433 of the CrPC for commutation of sentence within tffirty 6ays and files such application within sixty days from today, and Tumishes personal bond of Rs.10,000/- wth a soivent surety of iike amount, then he be reteased tiil the order of the appropriate Govemment. !n case of noncompiianee of this order or rejeciion of the application fciy the appropriate Govemment, the applicsnt shall surrendier himseif and suffer the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court."

¶44

The appiicant is kirana shopkeeper and wss selNng food articies, he is not casual vender. Gonsidering the Tacts and ctreumstences of the case,I do not find any ground for providing such opportunity, that too at the instance of the Court; however, he fs at liberty to fite such appiication independentiy.

¶45

Consequentiy, i do not find any ground for InvoNing revisionai jurisdiction. The revision is Habie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on baii, he shall immediately surrender before the triai Court for serving remaining sentence. Triat Court shall take appropriate immediate steps for his attendance for serving s^/~~~°

¶46

remaining sentenca

¶47

•K Snarnia Judge

¶48

•^/ c-

Dhani Ram Rathore v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhani Ram Rathore v. State of C.G.

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Sent and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Agrawal Vs Dr. Rumi Gond and Ors.

Rajendra Saluja Vs M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd. and Another

Igun Prasad and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue and Ors.

Inder Vs Commissioner Bastar Division,Bastar

Krishnachand Vs Dditional Commissioner and Ors.