Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajjuddi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1350 of 2006
BETWEEN:-
AJJUDDI S/O BHAIYALAL KURMI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BIHARIPURA, PS.NARYAVALI
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH TIWARI - ADVOCATE AND OTHER - ABSENT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SAURABH SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 10.07.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in
Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2005 arising out of the order dated 21.11.2005
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.44 of 1995
whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7(1) read with 16(1)
(A)(i) and Section 7 (3) Rule - 50 read with Section 16(1)(A)(i) of the Food
Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and fine Rs.1000/- and
R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 07.09.1994 when investigating
team were at Bada Bazar, Kujarai for collecting samples of foods, then the
petitioner was found to be involved in selling milk without having a valid licence.
Samples have been taken and sent for examination. The Public Analyst, Bhopal
found the cow milk contaminated and submitted its report. On the basis of the
report, approval for prosecution has been taken and a complaint case was filed
before the competent court of jurisdiction.
3. The petitioner abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. To bring
home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses and
defence examined two witnesses in his support. Upon consideration the entire
evidence, learned trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the judgment under
challenge, found the petitioner held guilty under under Section 7(1) read with
16(1)(A)(i) and Section 7 (3) Rule - 50 read with Section 16(1)(A)(i) of the
Food Adulteration Act. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed before the
Sessions Court which was dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Revision.
4. The petitioner has preferred this revision on several grounds inasmuch as
there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. Fine amount has already been deposited by him. He was
on bail during trial and never misused the liberty granted to him.
5. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has
vehemently opposed the revision.
6. After going through the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court as
well as by the appellate court, this court is of the considered opinion that no
error has been committed by learned courts below in recording the guilt of the
petitioner as mentioned hereinabove and in convicting and sentencing him as
mentioned hereinabove on the basis of aforesaid witnesses.
7. As far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that incident
had taken place 30 years ago. The petitioner remained in custody from
10.07.2006 to 24.09.2006 (two months and 15 days) Therefore, taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact, it does not appear to be just and proper to
uphold the sentence of the petitioner awarded by the learned trial court. This
court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if
the jail sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the sentence already undergone
by him by enhancing fine amount.
8. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The impugned conviction of
the petitioner is maintained but the term of jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to
Rs.5000/-. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the petitioner within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, then trial Court would proceed against him to serve remaining part of jail
sentence. The petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the present revision is partly allowed and
disposed off.
10. A copy of the judgment along with the records of the courts below be
sent immediately to the court concerned for information and necessary action.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
