Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1007 of 2004
-------
1. Bhola Prasad
2. Binod Prasad ..... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ..... ....Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioners :Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, Adv.
For the Opposite Party-State : APP
.........
04/04.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. This revision application is directed against the
judgment dated 10.8.2004 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XIII Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.7 of
2000; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 16.12.99 passed by the learned S.D.J.M,
Dhanbad, in P.F.A Case No.20/94; whereby the petitioners
were convicted and sentenced to undergo Six months
Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the
offence under Sections 7/16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act and in default of fine further undergo
for 15 days; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the
petitioners was dismissed.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on
13.10.1993, the Food Inspector visited the grocery shop of
the petitioners. He took sample of Haldi dust from the
vendor Binod Prasad after making necessary payment as
required under the law. Haldi dust was stored in the shop
for selling purposes. After analysis of the Haldi dust in
question it was found adulterated and the Food Inspector
filed the complaint case in the court of SDJM, Dhanbad.
Thereafter, the appellants were found guilty.
However, the convicts in their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the allegation and have
stated that from their shop no sample was taken by the
Food Inspector.
4. At the outset, Mr. D.K.Chakraverty, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
not habitual offender. Now the petitioners are aged about
57 and 47 years respectively and they also remained in
custody for 11 days; as such, he is confining his prayer
only on the question of sentence and since the petitioners
are now middle aged persons; sending them back to jail at
this stage even for short period will hamper their entire
family as well as their career; as such the sentence may be
modified in lieu of fine.
5. Learned counsel for the State supported the
judgments and submits that there is no error in the finding
given by the courts below. As such, the conviction cannot
be set aside, however the sentence may be modified in lieu
of fine.
6. After going through the impugned judgment
including the lower court records and keeping in mind the
limited submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and also the scope of revision jurisdiction, I am
not inclined to interfere with the finding of the courts below
and as such the judgment of conviction passed by the
learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate
court is, hereby, sustained.
7. However, so far as sentence is concerned, it is
apparent from record that the incident is of the year 1993
and about 28 years have elapsed and the petitioners must
have suffered the rigors of litigation for the last 28 years. It
is not stated that the petitioners have ever misused the
privilege of bail. Further, the incident does not reflect any
cruelty on the part of the petitioners or any mental
depravity and they also remained in custody for 11 days
respectively.
8. In a situation of this nature, I am of the opinion
that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioners/convicts back to prison; rather interest of
justice would be sufficed if the sentence is modified in lieu
of fine.
9. Thus, the sentence passed by the trial court and
upheld by the appellate court is, hereby, modified to the
extent that the petitioners are sentenced to undergo for the
period already undergone, subject to the payment of fine of
Rs. 7,500/- jointly.
10. It is made clear that petitioners shall pay the
aforesaid fine within a period of 4 months from today before
the court below, Dhanbad; failing which they shall serve
rest of the sentence as ordered by the learned Court below.
11. With the aforesaid observations, directions and
modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision
application is disposed of.
12. The petitioners shall be discharged from the
liability of their bail bond, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid
condition.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court below and also to the petitioner through the officer-
in-charge of concerned police station.
14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court
concerned forthwith.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
