CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shanker Dayal vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 January 1999 · Citation: (1999) 3 ACR 2528

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Section 16, 7
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1625 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 354 words

R.K. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Jokhan Prasad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Mr. A.K. Verrna, learned A.G.A.

2.

Mr. Prasad does not press the revision petition against finding of conviction of the revisionist u/s 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly the conviction recorded against the revisionist u/s 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the judgment and order passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 1984. Judgment dated 21.7.1984, is upheld and confirmed.

3.

Mr. Prasad pressed the revision petition against the quantum of substantive sentence of six months'' R.I. awarded to the revisionist u/s 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that the occurrence is about 18 years old and the alleged adulteration reported by the public analyst does not allege that any substance injurious to the human health, was found adulterated. Only Sub-standard "jira" has been reported by the public analyst with the 0.8% adulteration of foreign materials. Mr. Prasad argued that no doubt, it is economic offence with the profit motive so if suitable sentence of fine is awarded in lieu of substantive sentence of imprisonment, it will serve the interest of justice.

4.

Mr. A.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. does not controvert this submission of Mr. Prasad.

5.

The record speaks that revisionist has already remained in jail custody towards sentence of six months'' R.I. for about two and half months.

6.

The revision petition is partly allowed against the terms of sentence. The sentence of six months'' R.I. is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. The revisionist is to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 which will be over and above the amount of fine awarded to the revisionist by the Court below with Rs. 1,000.

7.

The revisionist is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, and to deposit the amount of fine within one month. In default of payment of fine he will undergo R.I. for two months.

8.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the lower court within a week positively for compliance of the order.