Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 596 (ALL)

MADAN GOPAL v. STATE OF U P

2000-04-22

J.C.MISHRA

body2000
J. C. MISRA, J. This is directed against the order dated 26-4- 83 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dis missing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 20-3-80 passed by the Magistrate convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Despite the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing the learned Counsel for the State the judg ment was reserved. Considering the memo of appeal and other available record, I do not find any merit in this revision warrant ing interference with the conviction. The fact remains that the said sample was taken on 13-12-75. About 25 years have elapsed. The revision is pending since 1983. Look ing to the circumstances of the case I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is al tered to sentence of fine. 3. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Badri Prasadv. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1996 SCC (Criminal) 79, followed by this Bench Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1984, Sohan Singh alias Swam Singh v. State of U. P. I modify the sentence awarded as under: 4. Considering the nature of the ac cusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, there fore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment. 5. 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 im posed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 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 con cerned and to apprise the State Govern ment 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 revisionist on doing so need not be arrested. The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidence deposit of fine may form alise the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. 6. In case the accused fails to deposit the fine imposed as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered. 7. The Magistrate concerned shall in timate the alteration of the sentence to the revisionist on receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction. Revision disposed of. .