Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 905 (DEL)

AVINASH CHANDER v. STATE OF DELHI

2000-10-20

R.S.SODHI

body2000
R. S. Sodhi ( 1 ) AT request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition is taken on board today. The date of 21st November, 2000 fixed in the matter is cancelled. ( 2 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 170/88 dated 26. 9. 2000 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 / 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also has upheld the sentence of six months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for two months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction but is confining his arguments to the question of sentence. He submits that out of six months, the petitioner has already undergone one month of imprisonment and that the Supreme Court in similar cases held as under : (1) In Re: N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Navelikara, 1995 Cri. LJ. 3651, held as under: "3. The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded Six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. l,000. 00. Under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000. 00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " (2) In Re : Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation and Another, 2000 Cri. LJ. 2777, the Supreme Court held : "4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukunwran Nair v. Food Inspector Navelikam, (1997) SCC 1010=1995 AIR SCPO 3229= 1995 Cri. L. J. 3651. LJ. 2777, the Supreme Court held : "4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukunwran Nair v. Food Inspector Navelikam, (1997) SCC 1010=1995 AIR SCPO 3229= 1995 Cri. L. J. 3651. The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article - groundnut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that the constituents fell below the standard very marginally. 5. This ease seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this Court as this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence under Clause (d) of ction 433, Cr. P. C. 6. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section 433, Cr. P. C. In the meanwhile me appellant will remain on bail. " ( 3 ) IN this case also I find that the article of milk on analysis was found to contain no foreign substance or in any manner injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that the milk solids not fat fell below the standards very marginally. This case, therefore, seems to be based on parallel facts enumerated in the case decided by the Supreme Court. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner deposits a total sum of Rs. 10. 000. 00 as fine in commutation of sentence of six months imprisonment within a period of two weeks from today and intimate the same to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi that such fine has been deposited. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner deposits a total sum of Rs. 10. 000. 00 as fine in commutation of sentence of six months imprisonment within a period of two weeks from today and intimate the same to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, the appellant will remain on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000. 00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court. ( 5 ) THE order of bail shall remain in force only for a period of two weeks. In the event the petitioner does not deposit the fine mentioned above, he shall undergo the sentence as awarded to him by the Trial Court. ( 6 ) BAIL bond, if accepted by the Registrar, should be intimated to the Trial Court. This criminal revision stands disposed of. ( 7 ) COPIES of this order be sent to the Registrar of this Court and to the Trial Court. ( 8 ) A copy of this order be given DASTI to the learned Counsel for the petitioner under the signature of the Court Master. Cri. Ms. No. 1736/2000 andcrl. M. No. 1788/2000: Since the main petition has been disposed of, these applications have become infructous and dismissed as such.