Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P.

Saroj Bala, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22.4.1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1985 whereby dismissing the appeal.

The facts giving rise to this revision are that on 5.6.1983 the Chief Food Inspector visited the business premises of revisionist for inspection as he suspected adulteration in edible items. The revisionist created obstruction in the inspection work by calling other persons of the locality and did not allow him to take the sample of edible items. The revisionist was tried for the offence punishable u/s 16(1)(c) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000 by the judgment and order dated 27.3.1985 passed by the Munsif Magistrate VI Ith Finance Commission, Banda in Criminal Case No. 1624 of 1983. He lost the appeal preferred against the said judgment and order.

Heard Shri J. H. Khan learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record.

The learned Counsel for revisionist argued that revisionist was not the owner of business premises. The compliance of Sections 10(7), 11(1), 20(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not made. There are no independent witnesses. The learned Counsel addressing the Court on the question of sentence argued that the incident took place in June 1983 and order of conviction and sentence was passed on 27.3.1985 and confirmed by the appellate court on 22.4.1985. According to the learned Counsel more than 21 years having elapsed since after the passing of the order of conviction it is an appropriate case for commutation of sentence. He relied on the decisions in the cases of Maqbool Ahmad v. State of U.P. (39)1999 ACC 758 : 1999 (3) ACR 2061 ; Tek Chand v. State of U.P. (45)2002 ACC 866 and N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, in support of his contention.

In the case of N. Sukumaran Nair (supra) the Apex Court held as under:

The offence took place in the year 1984. The Appellant has been awarded six months'' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay 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 to 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 formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Following the decision of N. Sukumaran Nair case (supra) this Court in the cases of Maqbool Ahmad (supra) and Tek Chand (supra) granted commutation in the sentence.

The offence having been committed in the year 1983 about 24 years have elapsed after the commission of offence. The revisionist having created obstruction in the taking of sample by the Chief Food Inspector the compliance of the provisions of Sections 10(7) and 11(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not required. More than a period of 24 years having elapsed since after the commission of offence it would not be just and proper to send the revisionist to jail. The appropriate Government is empowered under Clause (c) of Section 433 of Code of Criminal Procedure to commute the sentence of imprisonment to fine.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of imprisonment of revisionist is commuted to fine of Rs. 5,000 (Rs. five thousand) to be deposited in the trial court within six weeks from today. The above sum of Rs. 5,000 is in addition to the fine of Rs. 1,000 already imposed on the revisionist by the trial court. Trial court will intimate the State Government about the deposit of fine alongwith copy of receipt thereof and on deposit of aforesaid fine the State Government may pass appropriate orders u/s 433(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

In case the accused/ revisionist fails to deposit the fine within the period aforesaid he shall serve out the sentence awarded by the courts below.

The revision stands disposed of accordingly.

Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the C.J.M., Banda for follow up action.