Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1011 of 2000 Revisionist :- Manohar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.P. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 22.05.2000 passed by Sri Jagdish Prasad, Sessions Judge, Lalitpur Judge, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 1999, (Manohar Vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the judgement and order passed by Sri V.K.Yadav, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalistpur in Criminal Case No.2386 of 1994, under section 7/6 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S.Tal Behat, District-Lalitpur, whereby learned Magistrate has found revisionist's guilty under section 7(1) readwith section 2(1)(A) (M) and 16(1) (A) (I) of the aforesaid Act and sentencing the revisionist to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine the revisionist have to further undergo of fine the revisionist have to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist has been punished for the adulteration in the milk for the reason that the fat content was found is less than normal fat content in the milk.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that sentence may be reduced to the period had already undergone by him. The revisionist was on bail throughout period of appeal and has been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 09.06.2000. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 05.04.2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
The revisionist is on bail in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 22.05.2000.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the revisionist is on bail from last more than 19 years and has already settled with their family and it will be harsh to send him after more than 19 years from the date of bail granted by this Court after 30 years from the date of incident.
However, considering the argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist and looking to the age and position of the revisionist and taking into account that the incident is more that 30 years old and has come for hearing after 19 years of the filing of the revision, it is contended that rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into a fine of Rs. 5,000/- deposited within two months and it shall be go to the State.
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall be taken custody to serve the sentence as order passed by the lower Appellate Court.
In view of above, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, for its compliance.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 PKC