Reserve Judgment
Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 754 of 1988 Revisionist :- Hari Kishan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Virendra Saran,Vinay Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard Sri Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Amit Raj Chaurasiya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P.
2. The criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 09.06.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1987, whereby the aforesaid Criminal Appeal filed by the revisionist was dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.1987 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, District - Mirzapur in Criminal Case No. 409 of 1984, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further three month's R.I., was confirmed.
3. After arguing the case up to a length learned counsel for the revisionist confined his challenge and prayer only to the sentenced part of the impugned judgment and orders. In this regard he drew attention of the Court towards the fact that the revisionist is aged about 67 years, suffering from old age diseases and has served part sentence of 22 days. He was first time convicted and punished by the court on 25.03.1987, appeal filed by him has been decided on 09.06.1988. The revisionist filed this revision against the impugned orders passed by the courts below in the year 1988 and vide order dated 14.06.1988 passed by the Court he is on bail, while the instant revision is being heard after laps of more than 28 years. In the above circumstances this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to him for the period undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble court finds it desirable to enhance the fine the revisionist will not treat it as enhancement of sentence. To buttress his submissions learned counsel for the revisionist placed his reliance on Nand Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2010) 4 SCC 562 paragraph no. 3, 4 and 5 of above decision read thus:-
"1. The 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 of 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 29.09.2006, on the said ground.
2. Having heard the 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.
3. In that view of the matter and in circumstances mentioned herein above, we allow the appeal to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, we reduce his sentence to the period already undergone. Let the appellant be discharged form his bail bonds."
He also placed reliance on the decision of Suresh Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Revision No. 597 of 1990 decided on 18.02.2016 relevant part of the above judgment read thus:-
"Submission of learned counsel is that alleged offence is said to have been committed on 2.11.1988. Further, sending the revisionist to jail after a period of 28 years would not be at all in the interest of justice. Moreover, revisionist has already served out nearly one month in jail. Learned counsel does not address the Court on merit of the revision but confines his plea on the quantum of sentence. He states that raise in amount of fine will not amount to enhancement.
Revision is dismissed. Judgment and orders passed by courts below are confirmed with the modification that revisionist is sentenced to period undergone in addition to fine of Rs. 5000/-. He will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine, within three months. In default of payment, revisionist will face further simple imprisonment of one month".
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist also submits that in the above circumstances, this Hon'ble court may take a view of leniency and graciously modified the sentence awarded to revisionist to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhanced the fine, the revisionist will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 09.06.1988 (Annexure No. 1) is desired to be modified suitably.
6. The revision is partly allowed. Conviction of revisionist under Section 7 /16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the courts below is confirmed.
7. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- which will be deposited by him within 3 months from today.
8. The revisionist will be entitled to adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any. In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, he will serve one months' additional simple imprisonment.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 A. Verma