Madan Gopal vs State of U.P.

J.C. Misra, J.—This is directed against the order dated 26.4.1983, passed by II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1980, passed by the Magistrate convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Despite the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing the learned Counsel for the State the judgment was reserved. Considering the memo of appeal and other available record, I do not find any merit in this revision warranting interference with the conviction. The fact remains that the said sample was taken on 13.12.1975. About 25 years have elapsed. The revision is pending since 1983. Looking to the circumstances of the case I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is altered to sentence of fine.

In view of the Supreme Court decision in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 SCC 79, followed by this Bench in Sohan Singh alias Swarn Singh v. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1984, I modify the sentence awarded as under:

Considering the nature of the accusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, therefore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment.

In view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months'' simple imprisonment, the revisionist is sentenced to a fine Rs. 6,000 including the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for offence punishable u/s 7/16 of the Act on account of the milk being adulterated and Rs. 2,000 including fine for violation of Rule 50 with the direction to the revisionist to deposit the fine imposed in the trial court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate concerned and to apprise the State Government that the amount has been deposited with a copy of receipt and copy of this order. The revisionist on doing so need not be arrested. The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidencing deposit of fine may formalise the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.

In case the accused fails to deposit the fine imposed as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered.

The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the alteration of the sentence to the revisionist on receipt of the copy of this order.

The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction.