Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
criminal revision petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 401, 433
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ss. 7, 16
Judgment
Mr. S.K. Jain for the accused-petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Kr. Sharma, P.P. for the State. **** This revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 08.06.95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 212/92 and against the judgment dated 18.07.88 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota in Criminal Case No. 415/83. Vide judgment dated 18.07.88, the accused- petitioner has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months and this judgment has been confirmed by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner vide its judgment 2 dated 08.06.95, against which the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner without arguing on the merits of the case, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, reported in (1997)9 SCC 101, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “the appropriate government” is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited.
On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 3 Following the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdev Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 28.09.2004 and reported in 2005 WLC(Raj.) UC 201 has also observed that
accused now aged 64, facing trial since 1981- Accused remaining in custody for about 22 days- But for proper legal advice, accused could have even been acquitted- Sentence reduced only up to fine as imposed by trial Court- Fine if not deposited may be deposited within one month.
Similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 03.02.2005 and reported in 2005(2) R.C.C. 1057. Here in the instant case also, the matter related to a complaint filed in the year 1980 and the trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.07.88 has awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
Operative part
1,000/- to the accused-petitioner and he is facing trial since 1980 and had remained in custody for about 8 days. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner as well as the learned 4 Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record and the impugned judgments. As per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra), the present case is also a fit case and would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where more than two and half decades have gone by. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) in the trial Court as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. /KKC/ (K.S. RATHORE),J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: criminal revision petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 401, 433; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act — ss. 7, 16.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.