Shri Arun Kumar Agarwala vs The State of Assam

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.5.84 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 37 (K-3) of 1982 upholding and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused Petitioner u/s 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati in Case No. 1579 of 1978.

The Petitioner along with one Debi Dutt Keyal were prosecuted u/s 16 read with Section 7 of the Act and after conclusion of the trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted both the accused and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The Petitioner and the accused Devi Dutt Keyal impugned the judgment of conviction and sentence in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 37 (K-4) of 1982. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused Devi Dutt Keyal while upholding and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached this Court in this revision petition.

Heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. B.B. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (i) Prosecution failed to establish by leading cogent evidence that notice u/s 13(2) of the Act were served on the accused Petitioner and consequently the Petitioner was deprived of his statutory right to get sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory which caused failure of justice and the learned court below ought to have acquitted the Petitioner on that count (ii) Violation or non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter mentioned as the Rules) has also caused grave failure of justice for which the Petitioner ought to have been acquitted. (iii) the provisions of Rule 10(7) of the Rules has also not been complied with and it was not safe to rely on the sole evidence of the Food Inspector alone for convicting the Petitioner when his evidence was not supported by any inspection note prepared by the Food Inspector under Rule 9(c) of the Rules. It has also been urged that the provisions of Rule 16(c) and (d) have also not been complied with, for which the learned Counsel submits that the learned Courts below ought to have acquitted the Petitioner.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also perused the impugned judgment and order and the relevant materials on record. I find that the point urged before this Court in this revision were also urged before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment has elaborately dealt with the points and rejected the plea by giving cogent reasons. The learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the materials and the evidence on record arrived at the finding that the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act has been sufficiently complied with and so also the provisions of Rules 16 and 10(7) of the Rules. The finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is based on the materials on record and cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary which calls for interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. That being so, there is no merit in the petition.

Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also made another submission that the Petitioner was prosecuted in 1978 and long 11 years have passed since he was prosecuted and faced the trial and during all these years the Petitioner suffered enormous mental anxieties and for the ends of justice the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed on the Petitioner may be modified to pay a fine. I find substance in this submission and I am satisfied that for the ends of justice it is a fit case where the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment should be modified to pay a fine.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the modification in sentence that the Petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- instead of rigorous imprisonment for six months in addition to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/-. Thus, the total fine payable by the Petitioner would be Rs. 4000/- (Rupees Four thousand only). The interim order of stay of realisation of fine dated 9.7.84 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 423 of 1984 is vacated.