Birbal Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 6851 of 2001)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 6851 of 2001)
Petitioner: Birbal
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2002
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 6851 of 2001)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 6851 of 2001)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 07, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 16(1)(a), proviso second – Sentence – Reduction – Food item involved falling under second proviso – Adequate grounds given for reduction. Held that sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months. (Paras 4 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stands convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere in revision.
3. The only point canvassed before us is that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to three months as permitted under the second proviso to section 16 (1) of the Act.
4. It is an admitted fact that the food article involved in the case falls within the purview of the said proviso (it is milk and hence it is a primary food). An affidavit has been filed by the appellant showing the reasons for making a plea that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to three months.
5. On a perusal of the facts detailed in the affidavit, we persuade ourselves to hold that they are adequate and sufficient for reducing the sentence to the aforesaid minimum period of imprisonment of three months.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal to the limited extent by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months. If the appellant has completed the said period, we direct the jail authorities to release him if he had remitted the fine amount.
7. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stands convicted under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere in revision.
3. The only point canvassed before us is that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to three months as permitted under the second proviso to section 16 (1) of the Act.
4. It is an admitted fact that the food article involved in the case falls within the purview of the said proviso (it is milk and hence it is a primary food). An affidavit has been filed by the appellant showing the reasons for making a plea that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to three months.
5. On a perusal of the facts detailed in the affidavit, we persuade ourselves to hold that they are adequate and sufficient for reducing the sentence to the aforesaid minimum period of imprisonment of three months.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal to the limited extent by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months. If the appellant has completed the said period, we direct the jail authorities to release him if he had remitted the fine amount.
7. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
