Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 828 of 1991 Revisionist :- Inder Jeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- G S Hajela,Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Madhuri Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
2. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.04.2018, the accused-revisionist has appeared before the Court today in the custody of S.I. CP Sadrul Almin and constables Tej Narayan Singh and Rajendra Chauhan, Reserve Police Line, District - Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.05.1991 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1989 (Indrajeet v. State of U.P.), dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.10.1989 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences)/J.M. Ist, Basti in Criminal Case No. 598 of 1989 (State v. Indrajeet).
4. Vide order dated 18.10.1989, the accused-revisionist Indra Jeet was convicted and sentenced as follows :
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 100/- and in case of default in payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further ten days under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further fours months under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
5. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. As per prosecution version, on 22.02.1983 at 05.00 P.M., the accused-revisionist Indra Jeet was found selling adulterated mustard oil in Baghauli Market, Police Station - Khalilabad, District - Basti, without license. The Food Inspector purchased 375 ml. mustard oil from the revisionist for sampling. In the sample, oleic acid in the form of free fatty acid was found to be three per cent more than the prescribed limit, which confirmed the fact that the said oil was adulterated. P.W.1 Food Inspector Sirish Chandra Trivedi has proved the prosecution version. Believing on his statement, the impugned orders have been passed by the courts below.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that from the allegation of the complainant, offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is made out against the revisionist. Offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is not made out against the revisionist. Even then learned trial court has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the courts below.
9. From the scientific report, quantity of oleic acid was found to be 3 per cent more than the prescribed limit. This scientific report does not show that the adulterated oil was injurious to health.
10. In view of above, offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the revisionist. There is no illegality in the finding of the courts below, holding the revisionist guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.
11. As the adulterated oil was not injurious to health, in such circumstances, the revisionist cannot be punished under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, conviction and sentence of the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is liable to be set aside.
12. Statement of revisionist under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 28.09.1989, in which he stated his age about 45 years. 29 years have passed since then. Accordingly, his present age will be about 74 years. The occurrence had taken place in 1983, that is to say, about 35 years ago. Hon'ble Apex Court in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1981) 3 SCC 91 has reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone.
13. From the perusal of report dated 19.04.2018 of the In- charge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti, it reveals that the revisionist is in custody since 19.04.2018.
14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if the sentence of the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone.
15. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the revisionist under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act are set aside. Conviction of the revisionist under 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act are upheld, but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for further four months will have to be undergone by him.
16. The revisionist is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not detained in any other case, on his depositing the amount of fine, i.e. Rs. 2,000/- .
17. Let certified copies of this order be send to the courts below for intimation and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 I. Batabyal