Delhi High Court
Delhi Administration Through ... vs Ishwar Dass on 20 May, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: May 20, 2015
+ Crl. A. No.198/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.2572/2014
DELHI ADMINISTRATION TRHOUGH DESIGNATED
OFFICER ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP
versus
ISHWAR DASS ..... Respondent
Through Mr.S.N. Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The Delhi Administration through Designated Officer has
filed the present appeal under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. onthe
ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded by the Court of
ACMM-II/PHC/ND vide order dated 13th February, 2013 in a case
bearing CC No.163/11 titled as DA vs. Ishwar Dass under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 under Section 16(1)(a).
2. As per prosecution case the brief facts are:
"That on 27.4.2011 at about 3:00 pm Food Inspector
Sh.Suniti Kumar Gupta purchased a sample of 1500 gms.
Of Ladoo stored for sale in a open tray without label
declaration from Ishwar Dass (Vendor) MCD Kiosk at
UGC Lane, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-
110002. The sample was taken after mixing the ladoo
properly after breaking into smallest pieces with the help
of a clean and dry stainless steel spoon in a clean and dry
stainless steel tray and properly mixed with the spoon
thoroughly. It was divided into three equal parts and
putting into dry and clean bottles. That one of the counter
part of the sample was sent to public analyst. The Public
Analyst analysed the sample and opined that the sample
was misbranded because it shows the presence of
turmeric which is not declared as one of the ingredients.
That the accused was summoned and on 13.2.2013 the
accused pleaded guilty to the offence for the offence
complained of and learned trial court vide order of the
same date convicted the respondent and awarded a
punishment of TRC (Till rising of the Court) and a fine of
Rs.40,000/-."
3. The said order has been challenged before this Court. I
have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Sections 376 and 357 of Cr.P.C. read as under:
"376. No appeal in petty cases -- Notwithstanding
anything contained in section 374, there shall be no
appeal by a convicted person in any of the following
cases, namely:
(a) where a High Court passes only a sentence of
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or
of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or of both
such imprisonment and fine;
(b) where a Court of Session or a Metropolitan
Magistrate passes only a sentence of imprisonment for
a term not exceeding three months or of fine not
exceeding two hundred rupees, or of both such
imprisonment and fine;
(c) where a Magistrate of the first class passes
only a sentence of fine not exceeding one hundred
rupees; or
(d) where, in a case tried summarily, a Magistrate
empowered to act under section 260 passes only a
sentence of fine not exceeding two hundred rupees
Provided that an appeal may be brought against any
such sentence if any other punishment is combined
with it, but such sentence shall not be appealable
merely on the ground-
(i) that the person convicted is ordered to furnish
security to keep the peace; or
(ii) that a direction for imprisonment in default of
payment of fine is included in the sentence; or
(iii) that more than one sentence of fine is passed
in the case, if the total amount of fine imposed
does not exceed the amount hereinbefore
specified in respect of the case.
377. Appeal by the State Government against
sentence -- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-
section (2), the State Government may, in any case of
conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a
High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the
ground of its inadequacy -
(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed
by the Magistrate and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by
any other Court.
(2) if such conviction is in a case in which the offence
has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police
Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ) or by any
other agency empowered to make investigation into an
offence under any Central Act other than this Code, 1
the Central Government may also direct] the Public
Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court
against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy -
(a) to the Court of session, if the sentence is passed
by the Magistrate and
(b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by
any other Court.
(3) When an appeal has been filed against the
sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High
Court shall not enhance the sentence except after
giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against such enhancement and while
showing cause, the accused may plead for his
acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence."
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised the
preliminary objection that it is a petty offence. The appeal, if any,
ought to have been filed before the Session Court and not before
the High Court. The same is not maintainable. Even otherwise,
no permission from the State Government has been taken by the
petitioner.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, nature of
the order passed by the trial court and the objection raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent, there is no merit in the
appeal. Even otherwise there is a delay of 179 days in filing the
appeal. This Court is not satisfied with the reasons given in the
application. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MAY 20, 2015
