Delhi High Court
Inderjeet vs State Govt Of Nct Fo Delhi on 18 May, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P.150/2012
Date of Decision: May 18, 2012
INDERJEET ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in custody with Ms. Aasha
Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT FO DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned ASJ
dated 17.03.2012 upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section
16 (1) r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). However, the learned ASJ reduced
the sentence of the petitioner from six months to 3 months of simple
imprisonment, but maintained the amount of fine.
2. The facts in brief are that on 22.06.2004, the Food Inspector
purchased a sample of "Sweetened Carbonated Non-Alcoholic Water",
for analysis from vendor Sh. Nanak Chand. One sample was sent to the
public analyst for analysis, who gave his report stating violation of
labeling requirements. The petitioner being the supplier and manufacturer
of the product was accused for an offence punishable under Section 16
(1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the Act. A complaint was filed in the Court of the
learned MM who convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated
30.01.2012 for violation of Rule 42 (ZZZ) of the Rules, punishable under
Section 16 (1) (a) r/w Section 7 of the Act and awarded a sentence of
simple imprisonment of 6 months and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of
which he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days. The
petitioner filed an appeal before the learned ASJ who vide order dated
17.03.2012 reduced the sentence to 3 months simple imprisonment and
maintained the quantum of fine. Hence the present petition assailing the
order of the learned ASJ.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this being a
case of misbranding, and not of food adulteration the petitioner deserves
leniency by this Court. It is further submitted that the learned ASJ has
reduced the sentence of the petitioner from 6 months to 3 months of
simple imprisonment. It is submitted that this Court under its revisionary
jurisdiction has ample power to further reduce the sentence of the
petitioner and prays for reduction of the sentence to already undergone
i.e., 2 months. She relies upon a judgment of this Court in Food
Inspector v. Vinod Kumar 2012 (2) JCC 871 in support of her
submissions.
4. There is no dispute as to the wide amplitude of the powers of this
Court. However, the powers of this Court have to be used cautiously and
sparingly and only in cases where there is any apparent gross irregularity
of law or miscarriage of justice to the litigant. In the present case the
learned ASJ in his wisdom, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, has sufficiently reduced the sentence from 6 months to 3 months of
simple imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment of three months is
just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. I find no
infirmity in the order of the learned ASJ and hence do not wish to
interfere with the order of the learned ASJ without there being any special
or extra-ordinary reasons to do so.
5. The order of the learned ASJ is upheld. The petitioner shall
complete his period of sentence.
6. The petition is dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
MAY 18, 2012/hg
