# STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. JAGDISH PRASAD

- **Citation:** [2009] 7 S.C.R. 175
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-rajasthan-v-jagdish-prasad-25899
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

L·
-~
~,
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - ss. 7 and 16
A
B
- Conviction under and imposition of six months RI - HighCourt commuting sentence of six months for fine -
C
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Strict adherence to
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
safeguarding interest of consumers of articles of food -
Stringent laws will have no meaning if offender could get away -
with fine -
Order of sentence by trial court upheld - For period D
of three months, accused given liberty to move the appropriate
Government for commutation - Accused not to surrender
during the said period to undergo sentence - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 -
s.433 .,.. Sentence/sentencing -
Commutation of.
E
Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (5) SCC 721 -
relied on
Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mave/ikara 1997 (9) -
sec 101 - referred to
.
Case Law Reference
1997 (9) sec 101
2004 (5) sec 121
Referred to
Relied on
Para 2
Para 5
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 869 of 2009
·
-
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.01.2007 of the
),\
175
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. •
Criminal Revision Petition No. 270 of 1995.
Milind Kumar, for the Appellant.
Naresh Bakshi, for the Respondent.
B
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
c
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
,.
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the
impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the
conviction for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act')
imposed fine of Rs.6,000/- and directed that the same is in •
D commutation of the sentence of six months RI as awarded by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was further directed
that the appropriate Government shall formalize the matter by
passing of an appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section
E 433 of the Cod~ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code') if the amount is deposited within a particular period.
For the aforesaid purpose the High Court relied on a decision
of this Court in Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara
(1997 ((9) sec 101).
F
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment.
G
5. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004 (5) SCC
721) it was inter-alia observed as follows:
"15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the
offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months'
rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant
H
has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous
...
•
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. JAGDISH PRASAD
177
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] .
imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not A
inclined to modify fhe sentence by passing an order of the
nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair where this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a
sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its
powers under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal B
Procedure to commute the sentence of simple
imprisonment for fine. In the instant case, the appellant
has been sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that
strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration c
. Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food.
Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get
away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to
interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant." 0
6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The
sentence as imposed by the trial Court is restored. However,
since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if
the accused-respondent moves the appropriate Government
t

## Text

-
,
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 175
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v
JAGDISH PRASAD
Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2009
APRIL 29, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
L·
-~
~,
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - ss. 7 and 16
A
B
- Conviction under and imposition of six months RI - HighCourt commuting sentence of six months for fine -
C
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Strict adherence to
the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
safeguarding interest of consumers of articles of food -
Stringent laws will have no meaning if offender could get away -
with fine -
Order of sentence by trial court upheld - For period D
of three months, accused given liberty to move the appropriate
Government for commutation - Accused not to surrender
during the said period to undergo sentence - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 -
s.433 .,.. Sentence/sentencing -
Commutation of.
E
Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (5) SCC 721 -
relied on
Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mave/ikara 1997 (9) -
sec 101 - referred to
.
Case Law Reference
1997 (9) sec 101
2004 (5) sec 121
Referred to
Relied on
Para 2
Para 5
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 869 of 2009
·
-
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.01.2007 of the
),\
175
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. •
Criminal Revision Petition No. 270 of 1995.
Milind Kumar, for the Appellant.
Naresh Bakshi, for the Respondent.
B
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
c
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
,.
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the
impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the
conviction for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act')
imposed fine of Rs.6,000/- and directed that the same is in •
D commutation of the sentence of six months RI as awarded by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was further directed
that the appropriate Government shall formalize the matter by
passing of an appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section
E 433 of the Cod~ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code') if the amount is deposited within a particular period.
For the aforesaid purpose the High Court relied on a decision
of this Court in Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara
(1997 ((9) sec 101).
F
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment.
G
5. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004 (5) SCC
721) it was inter-alia observed as follows:
"15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the
offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months'
rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant
H
has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous
...
•
STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. JAGDISH PRASAD
177
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] .
imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not A
inclined to modify fhe sentence by passing an order of the
nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair where this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a
sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its
powers under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal B
Procedure to commute the sentence of simple
imprisonment for fine. In the instant case, the appellant
has been sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous
imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that
strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration c
. Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food.
Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get
away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to
interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant." 0
6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The
sentence as imposed by the trial Court is restored. However,
since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if
the accused-respondent moves the appropriate Government
to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be
E
considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three
months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence
during which period it shall be open to him to move the
appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the
matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate Government
F
the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder
of sentence.
7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
N.J .
Appeal allowed.