# (In Custody) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 998
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-05-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 966 of 1987
- **Bench:** R.K. Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-custody-v-state-of-u-p-40721
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Prevension of Food Adulteration Act,
Section 7/16-Adulteration in wheat flour
sample
taken
on
22.8.83
by
Food
Inspector-according to report of public
analyst-adulteration
found
proved2.2.87 conviction with 6 month simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-
Appeal
dismissed
8.6.87-statement
recorded u/s 313 revisionist was 30
years-after
long
gap
of
23
yearsconviction reduced to already undergone
with
enhancement
of
fine
up
to
Rs.2000/- accordingly revision partly
allowed.

Held: Para 7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the
accused revisionist. He contended that
the sentence of minimum six months
imprisonment has been provided under
section 16 of the P. F. Act and so the
imprisonment can not be reduced. It is,
however, to be seen that it has been
provided in this very section that the
court in special circumstances can award
lesser
punishment
after
recording
reasons. It is also to be seen that in the
present case the accused was convicted
for sale of adulterated flour which took
place in the year 1983. Now the accused
revisionist is aged about 50 years and as
such, I am of the view that taking into
consideration this long gap of 23 years
between the date of the incident and the
date of judgment by this Court as well as
the present age of the accused, it would
not be appropriate to send him to Jail
again for undergoing the remaining
period of imprisonment. As such I am of
the view that instead of ordering him to
undergo remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him the period
of imprisonment should be reduced to
the period already undergone by him and
the amount of fine should be enhanced
to Rs.2000/-.

## Text

998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 966 of 1987

Dhruv

...Applicant (In Custody)
Versus
State of U.P.
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri J.P. Gupta
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri Umesh Vats

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Prevension of Food Adulteration Act,
Section 7/16-Adulteration in wheat flour
sample
taken
on
22.8.83
by
Food
Inspector-according to report of public
analyst-adulteration
found
proved2.2.87 conviction with 6 month simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-
Appeal
dismissed
8.6.87-statement
recorded u/s 313 revisionist was 30
years-after
long
gap
of
23
yearsconviction reduced to already undergone
with
enhancement
of
fine
up
to
Rs.2000/- accordingly revision partly
allowed.

Held: Para 7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the
accused revisionist. He contended that
the sentence of minimum six months
imprisonment has been provided under
section 16 of the P. F. Act and so the
imprisonment can not be reduced. It is,
however, to be seen that it has been
provided in this very section that the
court in special circumstances can award
lesser
punishment
after
recording
reasons. It is also to be seen that in the
present case the accused was convicted
for sale of adulterated flour which took
place in the year 1983. Now the accused
revisionist is aged about 50 years and as
such, I am of the view that taking into
consideration this long gap of 23 years
between the date of the incident and the
date of judgment by this Court as well as
the present age of the accused, it would
not be appropriate to send him to Jail
again for undergoing the remaining
period of imprisonment. As such I am of
the view that instead of ordering him to
undergo remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him the period
of imprisonment should be reduced to
the period already undergone by him and
the amount of fine should be enhanced
to Rs.2000/-.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, J.)

1. This is a revision against the
judgment and order dated 8.6.1987 passed
by Sri Raghunath Prasad, then II Addl.
Sessions Judge, Deoria in Criminal
Appeal No. 7 of 1987, Dhruv Vs. State of
U.P.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of
this revision are that on 22.8. 1983 the
complainant, Food Inspector visited the
grocery shop of the accused revisionist
and took sample of wheat flour from his
shop. It was sent to the public analyst for
examination, and according to the report
of the Public Analyst, it was adulterated.
Then a notice under section 13 (2) of P.F.
Act was given to him and after obtaining
sanction of the C.M.O. a complaint was
filed against him.

3. Learned Magistrate summoned
the accused and framed charges against
him under section 7/16 of the P F. Act.
The
complainant,
Food
Inspector
examined himself as P.W. 1 and narrated
the entire case on oath. He also examined
Sri Gomti Prasad (P.W.2) an eye witness
3 All] Dhruv V. State of U.P.
999
of the incident of taking sample of flour
and Sri Ashok Kumar (PW 3) clerk in the
office of the C.M.O to prove dispatch of
the notice under section 13(2) of the Act
alongwith the report of Public Analyst.

4. The accused revisionist in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated
that the flour whose sample was taken
was not meant for human use but he was
selling it for consumption of animals.
Learned magistrate, after hearing of the
case, was of the view that the case was
sufficiently proved against the revisionist
beyond
all
reasonable
doubts.
He,
therefore,
convicted
the
accused
revisionist under section 7/16 of P. F. Act
and sentenced him to undergo six months'
S.I. and awarded a fine of Rs.1000/-.

5. Aggrieved with that judgment and
order dated 2.2.1987 the accused filed
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1987. The
above appeal was decided by Sri
Raghunath Prasad II Addl. Sessions
Judge, Deoria vide his judgment dated
8.6.1987 He after hearing of the appeal
was in agreement with the findings of the
learned
magistrate.
He,
therefore,
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
conviction order as well as the sentence.
Aggrieved with that judgment and order
the accused has filed this revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for
the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for
the State.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist did not challenge the findings
of the court below on merits. He made
only one submission before me that the
incident is dated 22.8.1983. The accused
was convicted by the trial court on
2.2.1987. The appeal filed by the accused
was dismissed on 8..6.1987.Then the
accused filed this revision before this
court and this revision could not come up
for hearing before this court for a very
long time and for the first time it was
listed for hearing on 16.10.2003. It was
also pointed out that the file of the
appellate court was also weeded out.
However, the file of the trial court is
intact and has been sent to this court. It
was submitted by the learned counsel for
the revisionist that the accused in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
recorded on 27.10.86 has described his
age as 30 years. He further submitted that
in this way at present the revisionist is
about 50 years old, and after such a long
gap of 23 years from the date of the
incident, it would not be appropriate to
send the accused to Jail again to serve out
the sentence of imprisonment awarded to
him. He submitted that, in this view of the
matter, a lenient view should be taken in
regard to punishment. He further pointed
out that the appeal of the accused
revisionist was dismissed on 8.6.87 and
then he was taken into custody and he was
granted bail by this court in this revision
on 22.6.87, and thereafter he was released
after filing bail bond etc before the trial
court. He submitted that in this way the
accused has undergone imprisonment for
a period of more than two weeks and this
period should to be treated to be
sufficient.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer of the accused revisionist. He
contended that the sentence of minimum
six
months
imprisonment
has
been
provided under section 16 of the P. F. Act
and so the imprisonment can not be
reduced. It is, however, to be seen that it
has been provided in this very section that
the court in special circumstances can
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
award lesser punishment after recording
reasons. It is also to be seen that in the
present case the accused was convicted
for sale of adulterated flour which took
place in the year 1983. Now the accused
revisionist is aged about 50 years and as
such, I am of the view that taking into
consideration this long gap of 23 years
between the date of the incident and the
date of judgment by this Court as well as
the present age of the accused, it would
not be appropriate to send him to Jail
again for undergoing the remaining period
of imprisonment. As such I am of the
view that instead of ordering him to
undergo remaining part of sentence of
imprisonment awarded to him the period
of imprisonment should be reduced to the
period already undergone by him and the
amount of fine should be enhanced to
Rs.2000/-.

8. I, therefore, partly allow this
revision. The conviction of accused
revisionist under section 7/16 of P.F. Act
is maintained but the sentence awarded to
him
is
modified
and
taking
into
inconsideration
that
the
accused
revisionist
has
already
undergone
imprisonment for a period of more than
two weeks in this case, I order that the
sentence
regarding
award
of
imprisonment shall stand modified to the
period
of
imprisonment
already
undergone by him provided he pays
enhanced fine of Rs.2000/-. He is allowed
two months' time to pay this amount of
fine and if any part of fine has already
been paid by him that shall be liable to be
adjusted towards this amount. If the fine
is not deposited by him he would have to
undergo the sentence as ordered by the
trial court and confirmed by the appellate
court.

 Revision Partly Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54992 of 2005

Umesh Chand and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Nichlaul District
Maharajganj & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice
of Procedure-proper dress-the Revenue
Officers
while
performing
judicial
functions-must
wear
proper
dress.
General mandamus issued for strict
compliance to all the revenue Courts of
the state.

Held: Para 5

I have searched various circulars/D.Os
containing various directions issued in
compliance of the orders of the Court for
direction if any, to the Presiding officers
to wear proper dress while sitting in
Court
performing
judicial
functions.
Since
these
presiding
officers
are
performing
judicial
functions,
it
is
incumbent upon them to wear proper
dress besides observing in compliance
the various other norms prescribed
there-for. A direction to this effect may
be issued to all the Presiding officers
manning the revenue courts in the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. In the matter of directions
contained in order dated 11.8.2005 the
text of which was that revenue courts