Skip to content


Municipal Board Vs. Prabhu Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1983CriLJ1526
AppellantMunicipal Board
RespondentPrabhu Lal
Cases ReferredParmjeet Singh v. Delhi Municipality
Excerpt:
.....eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 34 of 1976 the minimum sentence which could be awarded was a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. sitaram (supra) can however be no longer considered as good law in view of a recent ruling of the supreme court reported in parmjeet singh v. to impose a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the prevention of food..........is that under section 16, as it stood even prior to its amendment by act no. 34 of 1976 the minimum sentence which could be awarded was a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. according to counsel the lower appellate court appears to be of the view that section 16, as it stood before its amendment by act no. 34 of 1976, gives it discretion for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, to award a sentence of fine alone. this, according to counsel is not a correct view, and it is contrary to the law laid down by this court in muncipal council, jaipur v. sitaram 1976 raj lw 358.3. it is true that if the cited case is applied to the facts of this case, this revision petition will have to be allowed and the sentence enhanced by awarding the substantive sentence of imprisonment and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.S. Sidhu, J.

1. This petition of revision by the complainant is directed against the appellate order of sentence, dt. May 31, 1971, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran in a case of adulteration of milk punishable under Section 16(1)(a) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it stood prior to its amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976. The learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- or, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. The complainant has challenged the sentence as inadequate and illegal and has prayed for its enhancement.

2. The main contention raised, by learned Counsel for the complainant is that Under Section 16, as it stood even prior to its amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976 the minimum sentence which could be awarded was a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. According to counsel the lower appellate court appears to be of the view that Section 16, as it stood before its amendment by Act No. 34 of 1976, gives it discretion for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, to award a sentence of fine alone. This, according to counsel is not a correct view, and it is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Muncipal Council, Jaipur v. Sitaram 1976 Raj LW 358.

3. It is true that if the cited case is applied to the facts of this case, this revision petition will have to be allowed and the sentence enhanced by awarding the substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine. The law laid down in Municipal Council, Jaipur v. Sitaram (supra) can however be no longer considered as good law in view of a recent ruling of the Supreme Court reported in Parmjeet Singh v. Delhi Municipality : 1982CriLJ1241 . It will be seen that this Court while construing Section 16, held that it was incumbent on the court; to impose a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1976. The Supreme Court has however held that though Section 16 (old) prescribed a minimum sentence but the counts were allowed discretion to impose either a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine. That being so, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court in awarding the sentence of fine alone has committed any illegality.

4. Of course, the court while awarding sentence of fine alone has to give adequate and special reasons for not awarding the minimum sentence prescribed by law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given such reasons which in my opinion are valid enough to justify a. lenient view. There is thus no ground for enhancement of the sentence. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //