Kurda Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.—By this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order dated 11.5.2001 passed by the appellate court, whereby, conviction of the petitioner u/s 7 /16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ''the Act'') and sentence to undergo one year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment has been maintained. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that sample of the milk was collected by the Food Inspector and sent for test to the Public Analyst. On laboratory test, milk was found adulterated.

It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the report of the Public Analyst only shows adulteration of milk but reasons thereof have not been given i.e. as to whether milk fat or non solid milk fat was less than the standard provided for it. Based on the said report, conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable. The issue aforesaid was ignored by both the courts below thus petitioner may be acquitted of the charges u/s 7 /16(1)(A) of the Act.

It is alternatively argued that even if conviction is maintained, the matter can be sent for commutation as per section 433 Cr.P.C. and, for the aforesaid purpose, reference of judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, has been given, wherein, taking note of Section 433 Cr.P.C. the matter was referred to the appropriate government for commutation of sentence.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the order of conviction and sentence. He submits that looking to the adulterated milk, order of conviction and sentence is appropriate. The prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. The samples of milk was taken from the petitioner, thus he has rightly been convicted for the offence u/s 7 /16(1)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, interference in the order of conviction and sentence may not be made.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

From the facts, case was found proved against the petitioner and, therefore, order of conviction was passed. Conviction of the petitioner is based on material and Public Analyst report which confirms that the milk was adulterated. The trial court passed reasoned order which has been upheld by the appellate court. I do not find any illegality in the order of conviction and sentence.

The fact, however, remains that matter is old by more than 16 years. Taking note of the provisions of Section 433 Cr.P.C. and in the light of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of N Sukumaran Nair (supra), I find it appropriate to pass order for commutation. Therefore, as per Section 433(d) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine within two months from today to commute sentence of imprisonment. With the deposition of such fine, the appropriate government may be moved to finalize the matter as per section 433(d) Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid, the order of sentence is to be governed and till the order is passed by the appropriate government, sentence will remain suspended. In case of default in payment of fine, as directed, the sentence awarded would be maintained. The bail bonds may be cancelled. With the aforesaid directions, criminal revision petition is disposed of. The record of the court below be sent back immediately.