Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Chandra, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. This revision has been filed by the revisionist Vikram Singh against the judgment and order dated 21.01.1997 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence u/s 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Against the Magistrate''s order dated 21.01.1997, a Criminal Appeal No. 4/1997 was preferred by the revisionist in the Lower Appellate Court which was dismissed on 21.12.2008 and the conviction and sentence, as awarded by the Trial Court, was confirmed.

The revisionist then filed the present revision challenging the findings of the Trial Court as well as of Lower Appellate Court.

A perusal of the order sheet dated 20.05.2011 makes it evident that under the orders of this Court the present revisionist was arrested and sent to jail on 09.09.2010. Thereafter he was released under order dated 20.05.2011.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist does not want to challenge the finding of conviction or sentence.

His simple argument is that since the revisionist was sent to jail on 09.09.2010 and was released thereafter vide order dated 20.05.2011, it is evident that the revisionist has under-gone the sentence of six months as awarded by the Trial Court as well as the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine. Learned Counsel for the revisionist namely Sri Pankaj Sharma advocate also made a statement at Bar that the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, which was imposed as fine, has also been deposited by the revisionist in the Trial Court.

I considered over the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Since the finding of conviction and sentence is not being challenged hence the revision is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed.

Since the revisionist has already under-gone the sentence of six months and has also deposit the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as was awarded by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.01.1997, the revisionist need not surrender before the Trial Court again. Even if the amount of Rs. 1,000/- as fine has not been deposited by the revisionist in the Trial Court, though a statement has been made by the learned Counsel for the revisionist at Bar that the fine has been deposited, the revisionist has under-gone the imprisonment in the default of payment of fine also.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court by Registered Post AD for information.