Back
2007(5) Supreme 439
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Mohd. Yaseen — Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1039 of 2001
Criminal Appeal No. 1039 OF 2001
(With Crl. A. No. 1040 of 2001)
Decided on : 17-07-2007
AIR 1979 SC 87; JT 2000 Supp (2) SC 394 – Relied upon
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 20AA – If the appellant succeeds in showing that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence the applicability of Section 20AA has to be considered – The age of the accused being of vital importance and as it has not been considered by the court below or the High Court, the matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954. The learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bareilly, found the accused guilty and convicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
The appeal preferred was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly which was confirmed by the High Court.
Findings of the Court:
The bail application as rightly rejected. Age of the accused had to be determined.
Result: Appeal for grant of bail dismissed and the other appeal disposed of with direction.
judgment
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —
1.These two appeals are inter-linked. The order under challenge in Crl.A.No.1039 of 2001 relates to an order dated 15.12.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The said application was filed to recall the order dated 27.7.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No.489 of 1986. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in Crl.A.No.1040 of 2001. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
2.The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the ‘Act’). The learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bareilly, found the accused guilty and convicted him as afore-noted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
3.The appeal preferred was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly. A revision was filed before the High Court. On the date fixed i.e. 27.7.2000 none appeared for the appellant. Shri S.A.N. Shah, advocate who appeared stated that he has no instructions to conduct the case. The High Court perused the records and after hearing learned Government Advocate found that the appellate Court had elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and on perusal of the materials on record had rightly dismissed the petition. An application to recall the order was purportedly filed under Section 482 of the Code stating that Shri S.A.N. Shah was not the authorized lawyer. The revision petition in fact had been filed by Shri U.N. Sharma whose name was not printed in the cause list.
4.When the appellant was not represented the High Court sent notice to the appellant to engage a counsel to defend his case, but no proof of service was there. It was further submitted that the High Court has erroneously held that Section 482 of the Code had no role to play. Additionally, it is submitted that the appellant had produced the certificate of his age and material in that regard has been placed before the appellate Court but it did not consider the same.
5.It is to be noted that the appellant had taken a definite stand before the First Appellate Court about his age being less than 18 years. Reference was made to Section 20AA of the Act to contend that the probation was to be granted. The High Court did not accept the plea and held that once the appeal has been decided on merits it is not open to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code.
6.Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order passed.
7.In State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agrawal,1 (AIR 1979 SC 87) it was noted in paragraph 20 as follows:
“–..This decision instead of supporting the respondent clearly lays down, following U.J.S. Chopra v. State of Bombay (AIR 1955 SC 633) that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisionsal jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise the revisional jurisdiction–. The provisions of section 561A of the Code cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code.”
8.In Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors.,2 (JT 2000 Supp (2) SC 394) the position was re-iterated in para 10 as follows:
“Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed it judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same r
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
