Allahabad High Court
Surendra Prasad Rauniyar vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2097 of 2003
Revisionist :- Surendra Prasad Rauniyar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists and Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No1, Ballia in Criminal Appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.1999 passed by Special/Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Ballia in Criminal Case No. 850/96 State vs. Surendra Prasad under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, Police Station Dubaharh, District Ballia, whereby the learned Magistrate held guilty to revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act and punished him to pay Rs. 2000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to serve out three month's rigorous imprisonment and also to serve out one year rigorous imprisonment extra, dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence order dated 14.09.1999.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being decided on the question of sentence only.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionists is one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act. The rest of the sentence of the revisionists be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the revisionist is on bail, he was on bail during trial and has not committed any other offence. He has already undergone a sufficient period in jail.
Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned judgments and orders and has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it. The appellate court has also not found any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the impugned judgments and orders as well as record, and in my opinion the same do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error which may call for any interference by this Court, hence the conviction and sentence of the revisionist is hereby upheld, but taking into account of the fact that revisionist has already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the lower appellate court, his rest of sentence be converted into fine.
Accordingly, revisionist is directed to pay and deposit a total fine of Rs. 40,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned, out of which Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to the informant of the case, and remaining Rs. 5,000/- shall go to the State. If the revisionist deposits the aforesaid amount of fine, they shall be released forthwith, if not already released and further if not wanted in any other case.
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.
With the above observations/ directions, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned C.J.M. for its compliance.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
Arvind
