Siraj Uddin (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

K.D. Shahi, J.—This revision has been filed by revisionist/Appellant, Siraj Uddin against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1982 passed by Sri G.S.N. Tripathi, the then 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1982, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of the revisionist u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo six months� R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further three months� R.I. in Case No. 440 of 1982, State v. Siraj Uddin, u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Police Station Dhampur, district Bijnor.

It is alleged that on 12.1.1981 at 8.15 a.m. revisionist Siraj Uddin was selling mixed milk near Seohara Road, Chauraha within the limits of Nagar Palika Kshetra. A sample was taken from him by the Food Inspector, namely, G.D. Kandpal (P.W. 1) and the same was sent for chemical examination, after examination it was found adulterated.

The revisionist was charged on 22.11.1981 and after recording the statements of G.D. Kandpal, Food Inspector (P.W. 1) and Kalian his Assistant Jamadar (P.W. 2) an independent witness and also of the accused Siraj Uddin. the learned Magistrate found the charge proved against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate against which order the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Sri D.N. Wali. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. Sri Wali did not challenge the conviction of the revisionist on merits. He only argued that looking the facts and the circumstances of the case, a lenient view may be taken in the matter and the revisionist may be released on probation of good conduct of any other minimum sentence, which may be passed against the revisionist.

I have considered this aspect of the case. The case started in early 1981 and it is 1999, the age of the revisionist was 50 years on the date of the alleged offence and now he is about 69 years and it was argued that in this old age when the revisionist has already suffered agony of protracted litigation, he cannot sustain the pains of imprisonment. It was further argued that the revisionist has remained in custody for about two days at the time of trial, for about seven days after dismissal of the appeal and when the revision was fixed for hearing, the revisionist could not appear. Due to non-appearance of the revisionist, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and he was taken into custody on 24.9.1997 and thereafter he was released on 27.10.1997, hence he has already remained in custody for about 42 days. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist referred a judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 1466 of 1983 by Hon�ble R.K. Singh, J. on 19.3.1996. reported in Bhageloo v. State of U.P. and Anr., 1996 JIC 676. In this case, it has been decided by this Court that twenty years have passed and the revisionist has now grown too old to face the rigour of jail custody. In this case, the revisionist has remained in custody for about two weeks. The revisionist had to be burdened with heavy family burden and if remanded to jail, it will result in starvation of the dependants. Looking these facts, this Court reduced the sentence awarded to the revisionist u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for the period already undergone.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist referred Anr. ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Des Raj Vs. The State of Haryana, . It was also a ruling u/s 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in which the accused was 26 years of age who was not a previous convict. He had faced agony of prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a period of eight years, the sentence was reduced for the period already undergone. In this ruling, a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Brahma Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 (2) FAC 13, was referred, in which it was held :

Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the Appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge has not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the Appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the Appellant to jail at this point of �time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter.

In view of this ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court and also the ruling of Apex Court and on the abovementioned grounds, the sentence of the revisionist was reduced for the period already undergone. The facts of that case are similar to the facts of the present revision referred above, the revisionist has suffered the agony of protracted prosecution and harassment for a long period of 19 years and in this peculiar circumstances of the case, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone. The sentence order passed by the learned Magistrate and its confirmation by the learned Sessions Judge is, accordingly, modified to the period already undergone. The conviction is however maintained, along with the default clause.