Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1198 of 2002 Revisionist :- Shakhawat Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel on behalf of the revisionist and learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 15.05.2002 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002 (Shakhawat Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of the judgment and order dated 29.11.2001 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Criminal Case No.1469 of 1994 (State Vs. Shakhawat Husain), under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by which convicting the revisionist and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has informed this court that the revisionist has already undergone simple imprisonment of about nine months in jail out of punishment of one year simple imprisonment by the judgment impugned in the present criminal revision.
Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the ground taken in the present criminal revision has been dealt in the appellate order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad and also drawn the attention of this Court about the relevant portion of the judgement wherein the compliance of Section 13(2) and 10(7) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act has been dealt with for the perusal provisions of Section 10(13) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are quoted below:-
Section 10(13) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub- section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory.
Section 10(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Where the food inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2), sub-section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall [call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures."
The revisionist is released on bail, in pursuance of the order passed by this court on dated 06th November, 2003.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the revisionist is on bail from last more than 16 years and has already settled with his family and it will be harsh to send him after more than 16 years from the date of bail granted by this Court after 27 years from the date of incident.
After hearing the learned A.G.A., representing the State, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for the revisionist and also examined the grounds taken in the present Criminal Revision. I have found that there is finding in the judgment that the substantial compliance of Section 13(2) and Section 10(7) supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has not specifically been challenged by the revisionist.
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 than 27 years old and has come for hearing after 16 years of the filing of the revision. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into a fine of Rs.15,000/- deposited within a period of three months and it shall go to the State.
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall be taken into 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 the Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, for its compliance.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Zafar