AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.P. Sharma, J.—By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27-5-2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 22/99, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-3-99 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh in Criminal Case No. 288/95, whereby the trial Court has convicted the applicant u/s 16(1)(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ''the Act'') and sentenced him to undergo RI for six months and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months for adulteration of iodized salt. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and records of the trial Court.
As per case of the prosecution, the applicant has sold Trishul brand iodized salt manufactured by Durga Salt Company and same was found adulterated. Prosecution was launched and the applicant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Food Inspector has purchased branded food article from shop, but has not enquired that who was the owner of shop, whether the applicant was owner of shop, inter alia, the applicant has suggested the Food Inspector that owner of the shop was Manohar Lal Lalchand and not the applicant. Even the Food Inspector has purchased salt manufactured by Durga Salt Company and the applicant has not sold the open food i.e., he has sold packed food manufactured by the Company, but the Company has not been made as accused. In these circumstances, jail sentence awarded to the applicant is causing hardship to the applicant for the casual act of the applicant and he is facing prosecution since 1995. Learned counsel by placing reliance in the matter of Satya Narayan Agarwal Vs. State of Assam, contends that the benefit extended to the accused in Satya Narayan''s case (supra) be extended to the applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the Food Inspector has purchased branded salt, but has not made the Company as accused.
Considering the peculiar facts of the case that in case of branded article without impleading the Company as accused the Food Inspector has launched prosecution against the applicant, I am of the view that the benefit extended by the Supreme Court in the matter of Satya Narayan (supra) should be extended to the applicant. In para 9 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held thus,
In N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, ) this Court observed as follows:
The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months'' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Under clause (d) of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months'' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the light of dictum of the Supreme Court in Satya Narayan''s case (supra), the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the applicant is hereby maintained. However, sentence imposed upon him is modified. He is hereby sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default additional RI for two months, with a condition that if the applicant files application before the Court below that he will file appropriate application before the appropriate Government under clause (d) of section 433 of the Cr.P.C. for commutation of sentence within thirty days and files such application within sixty days from today, and furnishes personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a solvent surety of like amount, then he be released till the order of the appropriate Government. In case of non-compliance of this order or rejection of the application by the appropriate Government, the applicant shall surrender himself and suffer the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court.