Skip to content


Laxmi NaraIn Vs. the State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFood Adulteration
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.B. Cr Revision No. 495 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1977WLN558
AppellantLaxmi Narain
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan and anr.
DispositionCriminal
Cases ReferredGhanshyam Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Excerpt:
prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 - sections 7 and 16--sentence matter 7 years old accused in jail for 16 days--held, sentence of imprisonment reduced to sentence already undergone.;there is no doubt that the petitioner had to face the criminal proceedings for such a long time and, therefore, in these circumstances the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force in it.;revision partly allowed - .....the conviction of the petitioner under section 7 read with section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act. the petitioner was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, besides this, the petitioner was also convicted for contravening rule 50 of the prevention of food adulteration rules and he was awarded imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of rs. 100/-, or in default further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.2. on 16th january, 1971 a sample of cow milk was taken from the container when was being carried on by the petitioner when he was asked to show licence to sell the milk, he could not do so. the milk on examination was found to be.....
Judgment:

V.P. Tyagi, C.J.

1. This is a revision application filed by Laxmi Narain against the judgment of Shri G.K Sharma, Additional Sessions No. 3, Jaipur City upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The petitioner was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, Besides this, the petitioner was also convicted for contravening Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and he was awarded imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 100/-, or in default further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

2. On 16th January, 1971 a sample of cow milk was taken from the container when was being carried on by the petitioner when he was asked to show licence to sell the milk, he could not do so. The milk on examination was found to be adulterated.

3. learned Counsel for the petitioner urged only one point before me that the petitioner has been facing the criminal trial since last seven years and, therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to send him to jail after such a long time. It is contended that the petitioner has already undergone 16 days rigorous imprisonment in pursuance of the judgment of the trial court. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on Ghanshyam Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi : AIR1975SC845 wherein the learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that it would not be proper to send the appellant to jail after a lapse of about 9 years when the appellant had already faced the rigors of the criminal trial. In that view of the matter, the learned Judges extended to the appellant in that case the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. That case was also a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. There is no doubt that the petitioner had to face the criminal proceedings for such a long time and, therefore, in these circumstances the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner appears to have some force in it.

4. The result is that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced from six months to one already undergone. The sentence of fine shall however remain intact both under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also for contravening Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed.


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