Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 672 of 1985 Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Sharma And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- J.N.Chaturvedi,Anil Pathak,Anil Raghav,B.K. Pandey,S.P.S.Raghav,V.P.Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,S.D.S. Raghav
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
The present revision has been filed by two revisionists, namely, Anil Kumar Sharma and Ashok Kumar. It is stated that Ashok Kumar died in a road accident on 20.10.1987 and this fact is also verified by C.J.M. Rampur vide order dated 6.5.2003, therefore, the revision is abated for the revisionist, Ashok Kumar. So far as revisionist Anil Kumar Sharma is concerned, the revision is being decided.
Prosecution story as it appears from the statement of Ranjit Singh (PW1), Food Inspector is that on 25.4.1981 at about 5 P.M. he checked parchoon shop of accused Anil Kumar. The accused was selling edibles, mustered oil and spices etc. He (PW1) disclosed his identity in the presence of witnesses and enquired about the accused. Accused disclosed his name Anil Kumar son of Bhoopa Pandit resident of Purana Ganj, P.S. Ganj, District Rampur. He (PW1) purchased 450 grams mustered oil for a sum of Rs. 6.75 and served a notice (Ex Ka1) upon the accused. The accused refused to sign it. The accused possessed no licence. Accused also refused to sign the payment sample costs (Ext Ka-2). The sample was divided into three parts and kept in three dry and clean phials. Then the phials were corked, labelled and sealed. One of the phials along with form no. 7 was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow the next day for analysis. The rest of two phials along with two copies of form no.7 were sealed in an envelope and submitted in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Rampur. The report of the Public Analyst is (Ex Ka-4) according to which 32 percent T.O. Oil was mixed in the sample. He submitted a report (Ext Ka-5) to the Chief Medical Officer, Rampur to obtain his permission to prosecute the accused-persons. The Chief Medical Officer's permission to prosecute the accused-persons is (Ext. Ka-6). He then filed the complaint (Ext Ka-7). On 19.12.81 he learnt from police report that the accused-persons are the sons of Rameshwar Dayal.
Accused Ashok Kumar stated that he has no shop. In fact, the Food Inspector had asked him to be a witness. On his refusal, he has been fixed up in this case. Accused Anil Kumar has given a similar statement. Both of them have pleaded not guilty to charges under Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Ultimately in the said case, revisionists were punished by imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each.
It is further stated that the matter is 37 years old and the revisionist Anil Kumar Sharma has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
In support thereof, learned counsel for the revisionist had placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 and invited attention of this court to paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment which are quoted below:-
"4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant urged that the Appellant had been wrongly convicted of the offence alleged against him since the mustard oil in question had been purchased by the Appellant from the open market and was not meant for human consumption, but to be used for lighting lamps during Deepawali. It may immediately be indicated that the said defence of the Appellant was not accepted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court or the High Court. Learned counsel then pleaded that since the incident is alleged to have taken place about 27 years ago, the sentence of the Appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In fact, notice was issued on 29th September, 2006, on the said ground.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place almost 27 years ago and the Appellant is now more than 70 years of age, suffering from several medical ailments, we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellant for reduction of his sentence.
6. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we allow the appeal to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, we reduce his sentence to the period already undergone."
Facts of the present case is identical to the facts of the case of Nand Lal (Supra), therefore, this revision is also allowed to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of revisionist his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 1,000 earlier imposed upon him by judgment and order dated 28.6.1984 passed by Judicial Magistrate (Special Court No. 3), Rampur in Case No. 1096 of 1981. After depositing the said amount, he shall be released from the jail forthwith.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Arvind