Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 704 (ALL)

BAL KRISHNA DASS v. STATE OF U P

2000-05-10

J.C.MISHRA

body2000
J. C. MISHRA, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-10-1987 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 17-5- 1986 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi convicting the revisionists for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to fine of Rs. 5 (K ). 2. Despite the list being revised, none appears to press the revision. 3. 1 have gone through the judgments with the help of the learned A. G. A. and perused the memo of revision. 4. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I find no merit in this revision so far as conviction is concerned. The fact remains that the alleged offence was committed long before in the year 1983 and more than 16years has elapsed. 5. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances 1 find that the ends of justice do not require that the accused be sent to jail after such a long time. 6. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 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 awarded as under: 7. 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. 8. 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. 8. 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. 1,000 including line 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 State Government on receipt of the copy of t he order and receipt evidencing deposit of line may formalise the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. 9. In case the accused fails to deposit the line imposed as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered. 10. The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the alteration of the sentence to the revisionist on receipt of the copy of this order. 11. The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction. Revision disposed of. .