Mohan Lal vs State on 3 February, 2010

                                     1

         S.B.CR. REVISION PETITION NO. 329/1994

                             Mohan Lal
                                  Vs.
                          State of Rajasthan


             DATE OF ORDER :: 3rd February, 2010


            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the petitioner.
Mr. O.P. Singaria, PP for the State.


        This revision petition as per provisions of Section 397 read

with    Section    401   Cr.P.C.   is    preferred   to   assail   validity,

correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 7.9.1994

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal

Appeal No.15/1994, affirming the judgment dated 5.2.1994

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali

convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section

7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial

court    after    recording   conviction   as   above,    sentenced     the

petitioner for six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo

one month rigorous imprisonment.



        While challenging the judgments impugned, the contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court
                                 2

failed to appreciate that the formalities referred under Section 13

(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short

'the Act of 1954' hereinafter) were not observed, inasmuch as,

no timely action was taken by the competent officer for sending

the report of chemical examiner.



     It is also stated that the offence alleged is said to be

committed on 18.7.1984 whereas the petitioner received the

report on 17.9.1984 i.e. quite a belated stage. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also pointed out that retention of the sample

for petty long time, deteriorated condition of edible article and

that gave a wrong finding relating to adulteration.



     I have examined the orders impugned and also entire

record of the case.



     Whatever arguments raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner before this Court, as a matter of fact, have been

appropriately considered and dealt with by both the courts

below. The issue relating to compliance of Section 13(2) of the

Act of 1954 is considered by the appellate court and a definite

finding is given that there was no procedural error and if there

was any irregularity that has not caused any prejudice to the

accused. It is also noticed by the appellate court that a copy of
                                   3

the enquiry report was sent to the accused by registered post

and that is adequate compliance of the provisions of Section 13

(2) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR

1985 SC 299 (Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Maharastra).



      Looking to the entire position as stated above and on the

basis of examination of record, I am not inclined to interfere with

the judgments impugned while exercising powers under Section

397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. as there is no manifest error.



      Accordingly,   the   conviction   recorded   stands   affirmed.

However, so far as, the sentence awarded is concerned, suffice it

to mention here that in the year 1984 age of the accused-

petitioner was of 58 years and now he is of about 85 years. At

this advance age, it shall not be in the interest      of justice to

remit him to undergo remaining sentence, thus, I consider it

appropriate to substitute the sentence awarded by a fine of

Rs.20,000/- in addition to the period already undergone by the

petitioner in custody.



      The revision petition stands disposed of, accordingly. The

conviction as affirmed by the appellate court is maintained.

However, the sentence awarded is substituted by a fine of

Rs.20,000/- with the sentence for a term already undergone in
                                4

custody.   The fine imposed is required to be deposited by the

accused-petitioner within a period of one month from today

before the trial court.

                                    ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

rm/