Delhi High Court
Ram Prakash vs State on 27 February, 2004
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.09.1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of the order dated 10.1.1995 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Section 7/16(1)(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of Section 2(ia)(a)(b)(h)(i) of the Act and further vide order dated 11.1.1995 sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 08.09.1999 dismissed the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction. He confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, however, the Supreme Court has, in Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Haripada Das vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999 SC 1482, held that a sentence below the minimum prescribed can also be passed in the facts and circumstances of a case. He also relies upon a large number of judgments in B.Uma Maheshwara Rao vs. State of A.P., 2003 (3) FAC 78, Gurdev Singh vs. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003(1) FAC 105, Sher Singh vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh 2003 (1) FAC 210, Mohinder Lal vs. State of Haryana, 2003(1) FAC 70, Ishwar Singh vs. The State of Haryana 1994(1) RCR 161, Sat Pal vs. State of Haryana 1998(1) RCR (cr.) 75, Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1998 (1) RCR (Cr) 563, Chander Bhan vs. State of Haryana 1996(1) RCR 125, Des Raj vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) RCR 689 and Nand Lal vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) PFA 180.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence was committed in the year 1990 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigors of trial for nearly 14 years . He submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for some time and has been on bail since 16.09.1999 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of the society as a useful citizen, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. He prays that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.
5. With this modification, the revision petition stands disposed of. The bail bond and the surety shall stand discharged.
