High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Pal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 816 of 1987  RD-AH 7648 (16 December 2005)
Criminal Revision No. 816 of 1987
Chandra Pal . . . . . . . Vs. . . .. . . . State of U.P. & another.
This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 7.5.1987 passed by Sri Dinesh Mohan Arya, then learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal no. 192 of 1984, Chandra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others.
The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 27.4.1981 at about 7.30 A.M. A sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector from the accused revisionist Chandra Pal, and on analysis that milk was found to be adulterated. The accused was charged under section 7/16(1)(A)(i) of 'The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Sri Ramji Lal Sharma, Food Inspector as P.W.1, who narrated the entire complaint case on oath. Sri Harish Chandra Gupta P.W.2 proved the sanction accorded by the Chief Medical Officer for prosecution of the accused Sri Rameshwar Prasad Verma was examined as P.W.3, who is an eye witness of the incident. He supported the statement of the Food Inspector. Sri D.K.Sharma, an employee in the office of the Chief Medical Officer was examined as P.W.4. He has proved despatch of the notice which was sent to the accused for re-examination of the sample of milk if he desired to do so.
The accused denied the allegation of adulteration of milk. He did not produce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate after hearing of the case came to the conclusion that the charge under section 7/16(1)(A)(i) of the said Act was proved against the accused He, therefore, convicted the accused for the offence and sentenced him to undergo six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved with that judgment and order the accused filed Criminal Appeal no. 192 of 1984 before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. The said appeal was heard and decided by Sri Dinesh Mohan Arya, then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. He dismissed the appeal on merits and confirmed the judgment and order of the trial court. Then the accused filed this revision before this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the accused revisionist and the learned A.G.A. For the State.
The learned counsel for the revisionist did not contest the revision on merits. He made only one submission before me. He submitted that this incident is of the year 1981. He further submitted that the trial court passed the order of conviction on 19.9.1984 and the appeal filed by the accused was decided on 7.5.1987 and thus a period of 24 years has passed since the date of incident and a period of 18 years has passed since the date of order of the appellate court. He further submitted that the accused was sent to jail on 7.5.1987 and he was granted bail by this Court on 12.5.1987 and thus he remained in jail for about one week , and so now instead of being sent to jail again, the order of imprisonment passed against him should be set aside and in its place the amount of fine may be enhanced.
On the other hand learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that minimum sentence of six months imprisonment is prescribed under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and so there was no question of setting aside the minimum sentence.
It is, however, to be seen that it has been provided in the above Act that the court can pass a sentence less than the minimum sentence if it finds that there is sufficient ground for doing so. In the present case the revision against the conviction was filed on 12.5.1987. Thereafter no date could be fixed for hearing of this revision for a long time and a date for its hearing was fixed for the first time on 4.12.2003. Thus the file remained undated for a period of 16 years. Under these circumstances I am of the view that now after the lapse of 24 years from the date of incident, it will not be proper at this stage to send the accused to jail again to undergo the sentence awarded to him. The accused has already undergone the sentence of one week after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate court. Hence, I am of he view that in these circumstances it would be proper that instead of ordering the accused revisionist to go to jail again to serve out the remaining part of his sentence, the fine imposed upon him should be enhanced, and the order for imprisonment should be modified .
I, therefore, partly allow the revision and while maintaining the order of conviction, I modify the order of sentence and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by him, I enhance the amount of fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-. The accused-revisionist shall deposit this amount of fine within a period of four months from today. If he has deposited any part of fine earlier that shall be liable to be adjusted. In case of default in payment of fine the accused-revisionist shall have to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the courts below.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.