OM PRAKASH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3932 of 2014

Om Prakash Singh
                                                          .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Pradeep Chandra,         Pratik   Chandra,
                                Salaman Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt.Advocate

Court No. - 75
                      HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated
10.12.2014 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jalaun
at Orai, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2011, Om Prakash vs.
State, arising out of judgment and order dated 01.08.2011 passed by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Case No.2109/94, State Vs. Om
Prakash, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act for one year rigorous imprisonment along with
fine Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further 02 months
simple imprisonment.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist does not challenge his
conviction, but submits that he is ready and willing to apply for
commutation of sentence on the condition of further deposit, if any, in
lieu of awarded sentence.

5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the sentence is proportionate to the charge
established. He also submits that no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this revision pending and it be disposed of by giving appropriate
directions.
                                                        CRLR No. 3932 of 2014
                               2


6. It is not disputed that the alleged offence took place on 04.5.1993,
when the alleged sample of 'basen ke laddu' purchased from the
revisionist, was found to be adulterated. However, the Court cannot be
oblivious that an offence under the P.F.A. Act has serious ramifications in
the society, which cannot be lightly ignored, but at the same time to direct
him after 15 years to serve out his remainder sentence is the other
extreme. Learned A.G.A. is right in his submission that this Court cannot
tinker, where minimum sentence is provided under a statute like the
P.F.A. Act, 1954.

7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Prasad :
(2009) 12 SCC 646 held in paras-4 and 5 thereof as under:

"4. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was inter alia observed as
follows: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 15)

"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 that 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 sentence to undergo 6 months' rigorous
imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that strict adherence
to the Prevention of Food Adulteration 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."

"5. 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 respondent-accused moves the
appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the
same shall be considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three
                                                        CRLR No. 3932 of 2014
                               3


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."

8. The position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that the
allegations against the revisionist was selling 'besan ke laddu' which was
found to be adulterated. Learned A.G.A. could not point out any
distinguishing feature, which would make the ratio laid in the case of
Jagdish Prasad (supra) inapplicable on the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also expressed his willingness that
the revisionist is prepared to apply for commutation of sentence under
Section 433 of the Code and is also willing to deposit additional fine, if
any coupled with the fact that revisionist has also remained in custody
since the date of judgment i.e.01.08.2011.

9. The revision is disposed of subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Order of conviction is maintained;

(ii) In case, the revisionist deposits Rs.10,000/- as additional fine before
the Trial Court within 6 weeks from today, he shall be released on bail on
his furnishing a bond with two sureties of the like amount, each to the
satisfaction of the court concerned, and simultaneously he would apply
before the appropriate government for commutation of his sentence;

(iii) The State government shall be obliged to consider the request for
commutation of sentence in accordance with law and in the light of
observations made above, within a further period of three months from
the date of production of certified copy of the order along with the request
for commutation.

(iv) For a period of 6 months, revisionist need not surrender to undergo
remaining sentence. If no orders for commutation in favour of revisionist
is passed by the appropriate government, within the aforesaid period (3
months), the revisionist would be obliged to surrender only upon refund
of fine deposited by him.
                                                                                             CRLR No. 3932 of 2014
                                                                    4


                                    (v) The competent authority would strictly adhere to the time schedule
                                    and to the conditions stipulated hereinabove.

                                    (vi) However, in case of default on the part of revisionist in complying
                                    with this order, he shall forthwith surrender after 6 weeks to serve out his
                                    remainder sentence.

                                    10. Let a copy of this order along with the trial court records be sent to the
                                    Trial Court concerned and to the State Government for compliance and
                                    necessary action.


                                                                                                (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Naresh




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad