Santosh Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1385 of 1999)
Petitioner: Santosh Kumar
Respondent: Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1385 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 – State.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 433 with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 16(1)(A), 7(1) – Commutation – Conviction – Sentence of 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 2000 – Offence in 1983 – Food article having no foreign substance, injurious to health – Adulteration due to constituents falling marginally below the standard – Report of Public Analyst supporting. Held that matter is parallel to facts of N. Sukumaran Nair’s case. Hence, in commutation of imprisonment of 6 months imprisonment, fine of Rs. 10,000 directed to be deposited. State Govt. directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 433(d). (Paras 5, 6)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 433 with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Sections 16(1)(A), 7(1) – Commutation – Conviction – Sentence of 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 2000 – Offence in 1983 – Food article having no foreign substance, injurious to health – Adulteration due to constituents falling marginally below the standard – Report of Public Analyst supporting. Held that matter is parallel to facts of N. Sukumaran Nair’s case. Hence, in commutation of imprisonment of 6 months imprisonment, fine of Rs. 10,000 directed to be deposited. State Govt. directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 433(d). (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara ((1997) 9 S.C.C. 1010).
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stood convicted Under Section 16(1)(A) of the Pre-vention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara ((1997) 9 S.C.C. 1010). The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article – ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the standard very marginally. To convince us of the said contention learned counsel produced a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis is incorporated therein as follows:
“a) B.R. reading at 400 C 58.8
b) Iodine Value 100.8
c) Saponification Value 180.6
d) Free fatty acids as Oleic
acid 0.3%
e) Bellier test (Turbidity
temp. Acetic acid method) 23.80 C”
4. This case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this Court, as this would be an appro-priate case for commutation of sentence under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.
6. With this end result, this appeal stands disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant stood convicted Under Section 16(1)(A) of the Pre-vention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara ((1997) 9 S.C.C. 1010). The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article – ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the standard very marginally. To convince us of the said contention learned counsel produced a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis is incorporated therein as follows:
“a) B.R. reading at 400 C 58.8
b) Iodine Value 100.8
c) Saponification Value 180.6
d) Free fatty acids as Oleic
acid 0.3%
e) Bellier test (Turbidity
temp. Acetic acid method) 23.80 C”
4. This case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this Court, as this would be an appro-priate case for commutation of sentence under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 10,000/ as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.
6. With this end result, this appeal stands disposed of.
