Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi on 30 November, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 28th October, 2010
Date of Order: November 30, 2010
+ Crl. Revision No. 659/2010
% 30.11.2010
Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State NCT of Delhi ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. R.P. Khatana and Mr. Satender Kumar for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482
Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 3rd September 2010
passed by learned ASJ.
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that on 30th
December 1993, Food Inspector visited the shop being run in the name of Sunil Kiryana
Store in Main Market, Kondli. Accused Sunil Sharma was present at the shop doing
business. When Inspectors of Food Department were in the process of collecting
samples, father of Sunil Sharma namely Rajinder Kumar Sharma along with some
persons came to the shop and started manhandling the officials and thereafter both
father and son snatched the sample bottles from the Food Inspectors and manhandled
them and pushed them out of the shop. The matter was reported to the police and an
FIR under Sections 186, 353 IPC was registered and a complaint case under Food
Crl. Rev No.659/2010 Page 1 Of 2
Adulteration Act was also registered. The Food Department filed a complaint under
Section 16(i) (c) of PFA Act and the police after investigation filed challan under Section
186/353 IPC. Both the cases were tried together and the trial court convicted both the
accused persons under Section 16(i)(c) of PFA Act as well as under Section 186/353
IPC and sentenced the accused persons to undergo one year imprisonment with fine
under PFA Act and two months with fine under Section 186 IPC and 3 months with fine
under Section 353 IPC.
3. On appeal, conviction of both the accused persons was maintained by the
appellate court, however, quantum of sentence was modified and accused Rajinder
Kumar Sharma was given benefit of probation whereas sentence of Sunil Kumar Sharma
was reduced to six months under PFA Act being the minimum sentence provided under
the said Act and sentence under IPC was also maintained in respect of accused Sunil
Sharma.
4. The learned counsel for the accused has only argued that the accused be let off
on the imprisonment already undergone. While considering a revision, this Court has
limitation. The Court can interfere with the order of the two courts below only if there is a
jurisdictional error or the court below had passed an order totally contrary to the settled
legal position. It is not the case here. The two courts below have given concurrent
findings that accused Sunil Kumar and his father Rajinder Kumar Sharma manhandled
Food Inspectors, pushed them out of the shop and snatched the samples. Looking at the
highhandedness in which the accused persons acted, I find no reason to interfere with
the judgment of the learned Sessions Court nor do I find it a case for leniency. The
petition is hereby dismissed.
November 30, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl. Rev No.659/2010 Page 2 Of 2
