SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 456

Supreme Court Of India
B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI -Appellant
Versus
AMAR SINGH-Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2005,
Decided on March 11, 2005

Headnote:

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1A) - Reduction in sentence -

Respondent convicted under Section 16 (1A) of Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to21 days and enhanced the fine to Rs. 10,000/- Not proper-Under Section 16(1A) of the Act minimum sentence of one year imprisonment has been prescribed and no discretion has been given to the Court to reduce the same - Order of the High Court set aside and that of the trial court restored . [Para 5]

ORDER

1. Heard the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The sole respondent was convicted by the trial court under Section 16(1-A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 4000, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Sessions Court, on appeal being preferred by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision application before the High Court which maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 21 days and enhanced the fine from Rs 4000 to Rs 10,000. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant State submitted that under Section 16(1-A) of the Act minimum sentence of one year imprisonment has been prescribed and no discretion has been given to the court to reduce the same. This being the position, the High Court has committed an error in reducing the imprisonment from less than the minimum period prescribed under the statute.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order so far as the same relates to the sentence is set aside and the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the trial court is restored. The respondent is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which compliance report must be sent to this Court within one month from the receipt/production of copy of this order by the trial court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top