Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 518 (GAU)

Harekrishna Mazumdar v. State of Assam

2003-11-20

P.G.AGARWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. The petitioner before us Sri Harekrishna Mazumdar is the proprietor of 'Muzumdar Stores', a grocery shop situated at Jamunamukh, Dist. Nagaon. On 28.5.1992, Food Inspector visited the shop and collected sample of 'Mothdal' which was stored in the shop for sale on analysis, it was found that the sample of 'Mothdal' is artificially coloured with coal-tar colour Tartrazine which is not permitted to be used in Moth dal (Foodgrain) as per Rule 29 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955. 2. The petitioner was tried by the SDJM, Hojal and on conclusion the trial, the learned SDJM convicted the accused appellant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 of the said Act. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for another one month. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Crl. Appeal No. 11(N)/95 and vide impugned order dated 9.6.1995 the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order and conviction of the sentence and hence the present revision. 4. In this case, we find that taking of the sample by the Food Inspector is not in dispute, on the contrary, it is admitted by the accused. The defence took up the plea of 'warranty' and led evidence to show that the 'Mothdal' in question, was purchased by them from one Ram Deo Santosh Kumar at Guwahati who was also arrayed as party, but the firm was discharged by the trial Court. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not accept the plea of the 'warranty'. On perusal of the materials on record, we find no infirmity in the above findings. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sample was collected in the year 1992 and more than 10 years have elapsed and the accused person may not be sent to jail Hajot. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, reported in. We, however, find that the appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of the imprisonment for fine under Sub-clauses (c) and (d) of Section 433 Cr. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, reported in. We, however, find that the appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of the imprisonment for fine under Sub-clauses (c) and (d) of Section 433 Cr. P.C. In the present case, the appropriate Government is the State of Assam. We, therefore, provide that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach appropriate government for relief, if any, in the matter of sentence. 6. The revision petition is dismissed as no other question of law or facts has been alleged or made out. It is however, directed that the sentenced and realisation of fine be stayed for a period of 3 months from today in order to enable the petitioner to approach the State Government for obtaining an order in the matter. On expiry of the period of 3 months, the petitioner shall appear before the SDJM, Hojai Shankardev Nagar. 7. Send down the records. Revision petition dismissed.