Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 381 (MP)

Ashok v. State of M. P.

2019-05-13

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The applicant was earlier convicted under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act of 1954) by JMFC Badnawr vide judgment dated 26.10.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.632/2010 and sentenced to six-six months RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- -1000/- for committing offences under section 16(A)(A-1) of the Act of 1954 for misbranding and adulteration. The conviction and sentences thus imposed were affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 42/2017 vide judgment dated 27.4.2019 by ASJ, Dhar. The provisions under which the conviction has been affirmed are section 7(2) read with section 16(A)(A-1) of the Act of 1954. Against the impugned order of appellate Court, this criminal revision has been filed. 2. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of apex Court in the case of Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 2 AICLR 479 in which it has been considered that Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been replaced with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and later Act seeks to provide benefit to the accused persons inasmuch as the jail sentence is not provided therein and such beneficial registration can be applied with retrospective effect. In the apex Court judgment, the accused-Nemi Chand/appellant was convicted under section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 for committing offence of misbranding and was sentenced to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default imprisonment sentence. 3. The apex Court while considering the beneficial legislation as promulgated at a later date afforded the benefit the new legislation imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- to the accused/applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks equivalent treatment to the applicant in support of the case in hand. 5. Considered. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State was also heard and he submits that this case pertains not only to misbranding, but also adulteration, and therefore appropriate action be taken against the applicant, if this Court were to rely on the citation of apex Court in the case of Nemi Chand (supra). 7. Considered. 8. In view of the citation of apex Court which squarely covers the present case, it would be in propriety to substitute the sentence of imprisonment and fine with penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of offence for misbranding and further Rs. 50,000/- in respect of offence for adulteration. Thus, in all, Rs. 7. Considered. 8. In view of the citation of apex Court which squarely covers the present case, it would be in propriety to substitute the sentence of imprisonment and fine with penalty of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of offence for misbranding and further Rs. 50,000/- in respect of offence for adulteration. Thus, in all, Rs. 1.00 lac be imposed on the applicant in respect of both the offences. The applicant shall deposit this amount before the trial Court within a period of two months. On depositing such amount, his bail bonds shall be discharged. Presently, his jail sentence is being suspended so that he can acquire the desired fund of Rs. 1.00 lac. The substantive jail sentence is suspended on furnishing Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) by the applicant with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on 22.7.2019 and on all other dates given by the trial Court. 9. Thus it is specifically directed that copy of this order be sent to trial Court with a direction that if the applicant does not deposit Rs. 1.00 lac within a period of two months from today, then the order of appellate Court shall be revived and he shall suffer the jail sentence as already imposed by the appellate Court. 10. On deposition of Rs. 1.00 lac by the applicant, the jail sentence and fine amount as prescribed in the impugned order shall stand quashed and returned to applicant. This criminal revision is disposed of with conviction having been maintained but partly allowed in terms of sentence. 11. At this point of time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he undertakes to deposit penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac by 14th May 2019. In that event, the applicant be released forthwith by the learned trial Court on deposition of penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac. Certified copy today as per Rules.