SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 250

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.
Umrao Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 1981, (Arising out of S. L. P. (Cri.) No. 965 of 1981), D/- 10-4-1981.

Subject

Criminal Law - Sentencing

Act Referred

PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT : S.16(1)(i)

Headnote

Practice and Procedure - Minimum sentence - Under proiviso of Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and therefore for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than minimum prescribed could be awarded - High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence - Held, In view of High Court was justified - We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone - Sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine - Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith - Appeal is disposed of.

Judgment

TULZAPURKAR J.:- After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proiviso of Section 16 (1) (a) (i) and therefore for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents.

2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of and the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith.

3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly

For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1723

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top