Pratap Chandra vs State of U.P.

J. C. Mishra, J.—The revisionist has challenged his conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adultaration Act recorded by Munsif Magistrate, Farrukhabad and award of sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and to fine of Rs. 2,000. The appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by order dated 9884.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Dileep Kumar has pressed this revision on the question of sentence. He contended that the alleged adulteration was made on 14679 and since more than twenty years have passed. The ends of justice required that the revisionist may not be sent to jail. I find force in this contention.

In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 SCC (Criminal) 79, followed by this Bench in Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1984, Sohan Singh alias Swam Singh v. State of U.P, I modify the sentence a warded as under:

Considering the nature of the accusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before, 1 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 of Rs. 6,000 including the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act on account of the pulse being adulterated and Rs. 1,000 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 birdseed The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidencing deposit of fine may for malise 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.

Revision disposed of.