REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 869 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2943 of 2008)
State of Rajasthan ....Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prasad ....Respondent
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
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
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 433 of the Code 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) SCC 101).
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.
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 has been sentenced to undergo 6 months’
rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence.
We are not inclined to modify the 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 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
2
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.”
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
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
the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.
7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
……………………………..J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…………………………………J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
April 29, 2009
3