Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 976 of 1991 Revisionist :- Laxami Narain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Civil Misc. Restoration/Recall Application No. 3 of 2018
This is an application for recalling the order dated 22.09.2018 dismissing the revision in default.
We have heard learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. The order dated 22.09.2018 is recalled and the revision is restored to its original number.
Order Sheet
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 15.7.1991 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1991, by which, he has confirmed the earlier conviction and sentence of six months passed by A.C.J.M.-Vth, Gorakhpur vide judgement and order dated 10.4.1991 in Case No. 5161 of 1990, 168/89/9- 8-83 (State of U.P. through Food Inspector Piprauli Vs. Laxmi Narayan), under section 7/(1)(a)(i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act along-with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned A.C.J.M.-Vth, Gorakhpur has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionist. He further submitted that no independent witness was examined and provision of under section 10(7) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been followed. He further submitted that there is no signature or thumb impression of the revisionist on the receipt, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample was taken from the revisionist. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist is on bail and 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."
Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionist, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone subject to deposit of fine of Rs. 2,000.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Arvind