Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 954 of 2015 Dukhuram Vishwakarma S/o Jagatram Vishwakarma Aged About 52 Years R/o Banjari Chowk, Sanjari, P.S. Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Chowki Sanjari, P.S. Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vidyabhushan Soni, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.07 14:30:19 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. This criminal revision is referred against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.0000107/2015, arising out of judgment and order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 604/2015 whereby the applicant stands convicted under Section 34(2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year 2 with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, failing which he had to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist does not challenge his conviction, but submits that he is ready and willing to apply for commutation of sentence on the condition of further deposit, if any, in lieu of awarded sentence. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the sentence is proportionate to the charge established. He also submits that no useful purpose would be
Decision
served by keeping these revision pending and it be disposed off by giving appropriate directions. 4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Prasad, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 646 held in paras 4 and 5 thereof as under: "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 3 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." 5. The position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the allegations against the revisionist is that on 23.05.2015, on the basis of information of informant, the Police of Police Chowki Sanjari recovered 4 9 box foreign liquor (containing 48 quarters in each box), from the house of applicant. The offence under Section 34 (2) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act was registered against the applicant in crime no. 177/2015 and he was arrested. After completing the necessary investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the learned trial Court. In order to prove offences, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, though the applicant denied the charges, therefore his statement was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he was pleaded that he has not guilty. The learned Trial Court, after trial, found the applicant guilty and convicted under section 34(2) of Excise Act and sentenced him for 1 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 month rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment dated 05.10.2015. 6. Learned State counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature, which would make the ratio laid in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) inapplicable on the facts of the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also expressed his willingness that the revisionist is prepared to apply for commutation of sentence under Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. and is also willing to deposit additional fine, if any coupled with the fact that revisionist has also remained in custody six months. 8. The revision is disposed off subject to the following conditions:- (i) Order of conviction is maintained; (ii) In case, the revisionist deposits Rs.10,000/- as additional fine before the trial Court within six weeks from today, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, 5 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 06 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 six weeks to serve out his remainder sentence. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned and to the State Government for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti