CHANDRA PAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Chandra Pal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 816 of 1987 [2005] RD-AH 7648 (16 December 2005)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                      RESERVED

       Criminal Revision No. 816 of 1987

             Chandra Pal  . . .   . . . . Vs.  . . .. . .  . State of U.P. & another.

----

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

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.

Dated:16.12.2005

RPP

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.