Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3796 of 2018
Revisionist :- Akil
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A-I.
Present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.6.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rampur in Case No.252 of 2007 (State Vs. Akil and others), under Section 7/16(1)a(i) and 7/16a(ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and further judgement and order dated 17.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2018whereby order of Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No.1116 of 1981 has been affirmed and the revisionist has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that in the case of Maqbool Ahamed v. State of U.P. (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, altered the sentence awarded in such a case of food adulteration to the accused to six months simple imprisonment and also directed the State Government that instead of sentence of actual imprisonment he would pay fine which shall be deposited within stipulated period and then he would move an application before the State Government which on receipt of such application shall formalize the matter under the provisions of section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. In the case of Prem Chand v. State of U.P. (supra) and Roop Chand v. State of U.P. (supra), learned single Judge has also preferred to adopt the same view of the matter to provide benefit of alternative to the accused under Section 433(d) aforesaid for the purposes to avoid his further sufferance in jail, which in the circumstances of the aforesaid case was not justified."
Reduction of sentence, as awarded in such case under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is permitted as has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of W.B. and another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 678.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the averments contained in the present revision, this Court thinks appropriate for commutation of sentence.
This Court, therefore, directs the revisionist to deposit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of six months within a period of two months 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.
With the aforesaid directions, present revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Dev/-