Rajnish Kant Sharma @ Raja Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5821 MP

                                                                           1
                                        IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                                 BEFORE
                                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                               ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 863 of 2023

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       RAJNISH KANT SHARMA @ RAJA SHARMA S/O LATE
                                       JAGAN LAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
                                       OCCUPATION:   PROPRIETOR   NEELAM    SWEETS
                                       DINDORI R/O WARD NO. 7 BEHIND D.D. MARKET
                                       POLICE STATION TEHSIL AND DISTRICT- DINDORI
                                       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                                       (BY SHRI ASEEM KUMAR DIXIT - ADVOCATE )

                                       AND
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH FOOD
                                       INSPECTOR FOODS AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
                                       DINDORI DISTRCT- DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENT
                                       (BY SMT. EKTA GUPTA - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE)

                                              This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                            ORDER

With consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindori, District-Dindori in Criminal Case No.1503/2011 affirming the judgment dated 16.02.203 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindori in Criminal Case No.1503/2011 whereby the Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.04.13 11:04:23 IST petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 7 read with section

16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 01 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Braham Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1789: (1988 Cri LJ 1816) and Sureshchand Vs. State of Haryana, 1985 FAJ 388 (Punj and Bar) to support his contention that sentence even lesser than minimum may be visited upon an accused. In neither of these decisions, the question about quantum of sentence that may be lawfully passed for offences falling under re-casted provisions of Section 16(1) was either raised or decided. A precedent is binding authority only on the

question raised and decided by it. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of Rajpur Rudameha Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1707 : (1986 Cri LJ 1246). Unless the Court applied its mind and analysed a particular provision of law, mere general observations in the ruling cannot be applied when occasion for interpreting that provision arises in Ravel and Co. v. K.G. Ramchandran, AIR 1974 SC 818. The placing of reliance on the two decisions by learned counsel for the applicant was, therefore, of no avail.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of this revision.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be just and proper. Hence, finding force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the instant criminal case is running since 2011.

6. In the present case, there exist adequate and special reasons to take a lenient Signature Not Verified SAN

view. The crime was committed, as already indicated, about 12 years back and Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.04.13 11:04:23 IST

the applicant is also a pretty old man. Yet, no sentence lesser than the lower

minimum of 3 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- can be imposed under the law.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained. The sentence is however reduced to R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further R.I. for one month.

With this modification in the sentence, the revision is disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE vai

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VAISHALI AGRAWAL Date: 2023.04.13 11:04:23 IST