Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2532 (ALL)

RAM NARAIN GUPTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2005-12-16

R.K.RASTOGI

body2005
JUDGMENT Hon’ble R. K. Rastogi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, then learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1986, Ram Narain Gupta v. State of U.P. and another. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 24.10.1981 at about 3 P.M. a sample of buffalo milk was taken from accused revisionist and it was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and after examination the milk was found adulterated. A complaint was filed against the accused and he was summoned. 3. The complainant-Food Inspector Sri G.P. Asthana examined himself as P.W. 1 and narrated the entire complaint case on oath. Sri O.P. Srivastava was examined as P.W.2 and Lalit Mohan Srivastava, Khadya Lipik was examined as P.W. 3. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitted that the sample of milk was taken from his shop but asserted that it was taken from kettle of tea. No defence evidence was produced by the accused. 4. The learned Magistrate after hearing of the case came to a conclusion that charge under Section 7/16(l)(A)(i) was sufficiently proved against the accused. He, therefore, convicted the accused for the above offence and sentenced him to six months R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Aggrieved with that judgment and order , the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1986 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. This appeal was heard and decided by Sri Brahma Singh, then 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad, who dismissed the appeal on merits and confirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court. The accused filed the present revision against that judgment and order. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the accused revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 6. The learned Counsel for the revisionist did not contest the revision on merits. He made only one submission before me. He submitted that this incident is of the year 1981. He further submitted that the trial Court passed the order of conviction on 24.1.1986 and the appeal filed by the accused was decided on 16.12.1986, and thus a period of 24 years has passed since the date of incident and a period of about 19 years has passed from the date of order of the Appellate Court. He further submitted that the trial Court passed the order of conviction on 24.1.1986 and the appeal filed by the accused was decided on 16.12.1986, and thus a period of 24 years has passed since the date of incident and a period of about 19 years has passed from the date of order of the Appellate Court. He further submitted that the accused was sent to jail on 16.12.1986 and he was granted bail by this Court on 18.5.1987 and thus he remained in jail for about five months and so now instead of being sent to jail again the order of imprisonment passed against him should be set aside, and in its place the amount of fine may be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the prosecution submitted that minimum sentence of six months imprisonment is prescribed under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and so there was no question of setting aside the minimum sentence. 8. It is, however, to be seen that it has been provided in the above Act that the Court can pass a sentence less than the minimum sentence if it finds that there is sufficient ground for doing so. In the present case revision against the conviction was filed on 11.5.1987. Thereafter, no date could be fixed for hearing of this revision for a long time and a date for its hearing was fixed for the first time on 13.10.2003. The file remained undated for a period of 16 years. Under these circumstances I am of the view that now after the lapse of 24 years from the date of incident it will not be proper at this stage to send the accused to jail again to undergo the sentence awarded to him. The accused has already undergone the sentence of five months after dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Court. Hence, I am of he view that in these circumstances it would be proper that instead of ordering the accused revisionist to go to jail again to serve out the remaining part of his sentence, the fine imposed upon him should be enhanced and the order for imprisonment should be modified . 8. Hence, I am of he view that in these circumstances it would be proper that instead of ordering the accused revisionist to go to jail again to serve out the remaining part of his sentence, the fine imposed upon him should be enhanced and the order for imprisonment should be modified . 8. I, therefore, partly allow the revision and while maintaining the order of conviction, I modify the order of sentence and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone by him I enhance the amount of fine from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-. The accused-revisionist shall deposit this amount of fine within a period of four months from today. If he has deposited any part of fine earlier that shall be liable to be adjusted. In case of default in payment of fine the accused-revisionist shall have to undergo imprisonment as ordered by the courts below. Revision Party Allowed. ———