Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 351 (ALL)

Vishan Kumar v. State of U. P.

2017-01-25

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Meraj Ahmad Khan for the applicant. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No.178 of 1990 (Vishan Kumar vs. State of U.P.) issuing non bailable warrants against the applicant. 3. The proceeding under Section 7/16 of Prevention Food Adulteration Act was initiated against the applicant. The Magistrate by order dated 23.5.1988 convicted the applicant and sentenced him for six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Appeal No.18/1988, which was dismissed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit by judgment dated 25.1.1990. Thereafter the applicant filed a criminal revision, registered as Criminal Revision No.178 of 1990 before this Court. The revision was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 26.5.2016 in which conviction of the appellant was upheld. However, the applicant was directed to surrender before the court below within twenty days and on depositing a sum of Rs.10000/- as additional fine the court below was directed to grant bail to the applicant and the applicant was given liberty to file a representation before the State Government for commutation of sentence and a clause has been inserted in this order that "If no order of commutation in favour of the revisionist is passed by the State Government within the aforesaid period (three months) or his representation is dismissed, in that case the revisionist would be obliged to surrender only upon the refund of additional fine deposited by him." In compliance of the aforesaid condition, the applicant deposited a fine of Rs.10000/- before the court below and court below also granted interim bail to the applicant. According to the applicant he has moved a representation dated 13.6.2016 before State Government for commutation of sentence. Although period of three months have expired but State Government has not passed any order. The Magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 directed that as three months period has expired as such the applicant was required to surrender before the court below but he has not surrendered before the court below. Therefore, non bailable warrant has been issued against him. Hence, this application has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments the counsel for the applicant. 5. Therefore, non bailable warrant has been issued against him. Hence, this application has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments the counsel for the applicant. 5. The argument of the counsel for the applicant is as the State Government has failed to take any decision on the application/representation dated 13.6.2016 of the applicant within a period of three months as such State Government has committed default and the default cannot be attributed to the applicant. In spirit the order dated 26.5.2015 protected the applicant and the applicant has already been granted bail till the pendency of the representation before the State Government. The Magistrate has committed illegality in issuing non bailable warrant. This argument is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as Condition -V of the order dated 26.5.2016 clearly stipulates two clauses separately i.e. first clause is "If no order of commutation in favour of the revisionist is passed by the State Government within the aforesaid period (three months) and the second clause "(If) his representation is dismissed". Thus, there is no protection has been granted to the applicant during pendency of the representation. The protection was granted for a period of three months only and that period has already been expired. 6. There is no illegality in the impugned order 22.11.2016. The application has no merit and it is dismissed.