Muthiram Parambath Haridas vs State of Assam

I.A. Ansari, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 14.7.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jorhat, in Crl. Appeal No. 26/91, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 31.8.1991, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, in C.R. No. 348/88 convicting the accused-petitioner u/s 7 read with Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo RI for 6 months.

I have perused the materials on record. I have Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned Addl. PP.

Upon perusal of the materials on record including the impugned judgment, I do not notice that the findings of guilt reached by the learned trial court suffer from any error. This apart, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity of law.

In fact, at the time of hearing, nothing has been pointed out in the impugned judgment to show that any of the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court is incorrect. The conviction of the accused-petitioner can not, therefore, be interfered with. On realizing that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be assailed on any ground, Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned sr. counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner owns of a small restaurant, he is the only bread-earner of his family, the sample of curd was taken from him as far back as on 3.6.1988 and the petitioner has been facing the ordeal of the trial since then it has also been pointed out by Mr. Choudhury that the curd in question, was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst because water was found to have been added to the milk, which had been used for preparing the curd. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the petitioner had not prepared the curd himself ; rather he had purchased the same from others and was unaware of the actual contents of the curd.

In the facts and circumstances narrated above, petitioner''s case submits Mr. Choudhury, may be dealt with leniently and the sentence of R.I for 6 months passed against him may be converted into fine.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial since the year 1988 and he is, now, shown to be 60 years old, his case may be considered by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 433 Cr.PC for commutation of his sentence to fine.

In the case of Delhi Administration (Now N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Manohar Lal, the Apex Court has laid down that right to exercise the power of commutation of sentence lies with the State Government u/s 433 Cr.PC and that such powers shall be exercised by the Government in accordance with the rules and established principles.

Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the accused petitioner is given the liberty to make an application to the State Government in accordance with Section 433 Cr.PC for considering petitioner''s case for commutation of sentence to fine and in case the petitioner makes the application, as directed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of 3 months from today. If no order is passed by the State Government within the period of 3 months as directed, the petitioner shall forthwith surrender in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, to suffer the sentence passed against the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to serve out the sentence passed against him.

This revision shall accordingly stand disposed of.

Send back the case records along with a copy of this judgment and order. Also send a copy of this judgment to the State Government.