Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 830 (JHR)

Ujjawal Kumar Mahatha v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-08

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1996 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.08.1996 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro at Chas in P.F.A. Case No. 35 of 1990 (T.R. No. 496 of 1996) by which the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months has been affirmed. 3. It appears that on 09.11.1989 the Food Grains Shop of the petitioner was raided by the Food Inspector and it was detected that the same was being run without having any valid license. It is also alleged that on demand the petitioner had produced a license which was valid till 31st March, 1988. Since no reasons were assigned by the petitioner for not renewing his license after sanction was obtained by the Food Inspector prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Based on the prosecution report cognizance was taken and after charge was framed trial proceeded. In course of trial since the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in P.F.A. Case No. 35 of 1990 (T.R. No. 496 of 1996) by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro at Chas and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1996 which however was dismissed on 03.05.2002 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all members of the raiding party and therefore interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no independent witness has been examined to substantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioner. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution are all members of the raiding party and therefore interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no independent witness has been examined to substantiate the allegation levelled against the petitioner. In the alternative an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be reduced suitably considering the fact that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1990. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. It appears that in course of trial three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 3 (Jawahar Singh) has been tendered by the prosecution. So far as P.W.1 is concerned he is the Food Inspector who has stated that on 09.11.1989 the Food Grains Shop of the petitioner was raided and it was detected that he was carrying on business without any valid license as his license had already expired on 31st March, 1988. Similar statement has been given by P.W.2 who was the license supervisor. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 being the members of the raiding party are consistent on the point of the petitioner having failed to produce any license in existence at the time of raid and the license which was produced had already expired on 31st March, 1988. In view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2, the learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which was subsequently affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1996. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the order of conviction passed against the petitioner is, hereby, sustained. 8. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1990 and has also remained for some time in custody. Considering the aforesaid the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 9. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.