Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2336 (RAJ)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-12-18

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment 3.10.1994 whereby the appellate court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner. The present petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the court below and has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that the conviction of the present petitioner is against the law. He is not the owner or the servant of the shop and at the time of incident he was only 17 years of old and further the incident is of 22.8.1986. Hence a liberal attitude should be taken against him. He remained in custody for about four days. Hence he should be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 3. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that there is no perversity in the impugned order and looking to the fact that the cases of adulteration are increasing, no liberal attitude should be adopted. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record. 5. PW-1 Ram Dhan has stated that he was Food Inspector at the relevant time of relevant area. He went in village Dodiyana at the shop of the present petitioner. The present petitioner was present at the shop and he has taken the sample of Til oil. Form No.6 has been prepared which has been placed on record as Ex.P.1, wherein the present petitioner has also signed. Sample taking memo has also been prepared as Ex.P. 3 wherein the presence of the present petitioner has been shown as the owner of the shop. It is the contention of the present petitioner that at the relevant time he was only 17 years of old and was studying in Class Xth. Sample taking memo has also been prepared as Ex.P. 3 wherein the presence of the present petitioner has been shown as the owner of the shop. It is the contention of the present petitioner that at the relevant time he was only 17 years of old and was studying in Class Xth. Same narration has been stated in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., but to fortify this fact, no document has been produced before the court below, hence the age of the present petitioner and his status of student was not prima facie established before the court below and the court below and the revisional court have also considered the fact that the samples were taken in the presence of the present petitioner. He was present at the shop at the time of checking and he was working at the shop as owner of the shop and the defence version is afterthought, not supported by any evidence. Who was the owner of the shop, this fact also has not been disclosed by the present petitioner and the learned courts below have rightly considered this fact and there is no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the courts below. 6. Further more, it has been stated that looking to the age of the present petitioner at the time of incident and the fact that the matter relates to 1986, 24 years have passed, the present petitioner should be released for the period of sentence already undergone by him. Reliance has been placed on Gurudeo Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 404/1999) decided on 22.4.2004 (2004) 6 SCC 28) , Samir Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal in SLP No. 2715/87) decided on 25.1.1988 (1989 Supp(1) SCC 23) and Sopana Trimbak Wani v. State of Maharashtra ( Criminal Appeal No. 205/1971) decided on 12.8.1976 ( (1976) 4 SCC 299 ) , in which looking to the fact of the case, a liberal attitude has been adopted. 7. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that looking to the nature of the offence, the present petitioner is not entitled for any mercy. 8. It cannot be denied that the adulteration in the food articles are increasing day by day and the persons are not hesitant to add injurious or noxious substance in food articles just for profit making. 8. It cannot be denied that the adulteration in the food articles are increasing day by day and the persons are not hesitant to add injurious or noxious substance in food articles just for profit making. The very purpose of the Act to ensure the public health and maintaining purity in the articles of food has been frustrated. Now a days to have an unadulterated or genuine food is dream of the day and liberal approach towards the sentence would certainly frustrate the aim and object of the Act. Reliance has been placed on Issar Das v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1972 SC 1295 ) wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under:- "This Court dealt with the case under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act observing the adulteration of food is a menace to public health and the statute had been enacted with the aim of eradicating that anti-social evils and for ensuring purity in the articles of food. The legislature thought it fit to prescribe minimum sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the court should not rightly resort to the provision of the Probation of Offenders Act in case of an accused found guilty of offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act." 9. Further reliance has been placed on Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ram Chandra Dange and ors. ( AIR 1974 SC 228 ) , wherein the sentencing policy for commission of such offence has been dealt with and the Apex Court held as under:- "The kindly application of the probation principle is negatived by the imperative of social defence and the improbabilities of moral proselytisation. No chance can be taken by society with a man whose anti-social operations disguised as a respectable trade, imperil numerous innocents. He is a security risk. Secondly these economic offences committed by white collar criminals are unlikely to be dissuaded by the gentle probationary process. Neither casual provocation nor motive against particular persons but planned profit making from numbers of consumer furnishes the incentive not easily humanised by the therapeutic probationary measure. 10. Recently Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunil v. State of Haryana (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 7477/2012) decided on 27.3.2012 , the guiding principles have been re-appreciated. 11. In view of the above there is no substance in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Recently Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sunil v. State of Haryana (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 7477/2012) decided on 27.3.2012 , the guiding principles have been re-appreciated. 11. In view of the above there is no substance in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. He should surrender before the trial court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Revision dismissed. *******