Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3215
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan, J.
Shayam Lal - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 326 of 2010 and Crl. M. (Bail) No. 845 of 2010
Decided On : 13-12-2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advo#31;cate.
For the State : Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP with SI Kamlesh, PS Moti Nagar.
The court has the power to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed period under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for cogent reasons such as the age of the accused, time elapsed since the offense, and medical ailments.
Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Reduction of Sentence - Section 16(1)(c) - [Section 16(1)(c)] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the power to reduce the sentence below the minimum prescribed period under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, citing relevant judgments such as Nand Lal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. and Brij Bhushan v. State. The court considered the age of the accused, the time elapsed since the offense, and the presence of medical ailments as reasons to reduce the sentence. The court ultimately ordered the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of conviction and sentence under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Sections 353/186 IPC. The petitioner's shop was visited by Food Inspectors for collecting food samples, and they were pushed out of the shop by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the age of the petitioner, the time elapsed since the offense, and the presence of medical ailments as reasons to reduce the sentence. The court ultimately ordered the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: The main issue was whether an accused can be sentenced to a period below the minimum prescribed period under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it has the power to reduce the sentence even below the minimum prescribed period under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for cogent reasons such as the age of the accused, time elapsed since the offense, and medical ailments.
Final Decision: The court ordered the reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Manmohan, J.
1. Present criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02nd June, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’) confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) convicting the petitioner under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Sections 353/186 IPC.
2. It is pertinent to mention that the MM had sentenced the petitioner to six months rigorous imprisonment.
3. The relevant facts of the present case are that in the complaint filed by the Food Inspectors, it was stated that when they visited the petitioner’s shop for the purpose of collecting food samples, they were pushed out of the shop and the shutter was closed by the petitioner.
4. Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has instructions not to challenge the conviction order but only to challenge the order on sentence.
5. Mr. Saxena further states that as the petitioner is today aged about 70 years and the offence is alleged to have been committed on 08th August, 1989, that means, more than twenty three years ago, this Court should reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. In this regard, Mr. Saxena relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Nand Lal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. 2010 [3] JCC 2088. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the incident had taken place almost 27 years ago and the Appellant is now more than 70 years of age, suffering from several medical ailments we are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the Appellant for reduction of his sentence.
6. In that view of the matter and in the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we allow the request to the extent that while maintaining the conviction of the Appellant, we reduce his sentence, to the period already undergone.”
6. On the other hand, Ms. Jasbir Kaur, learned APP for the State points out that the petitioner has not completed the minimum sentence of six months under Section 16(1)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue that arises for consideration is whether an accused can be sentenced to a period below the minimum prescribed period under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Ram Shankar v. State 2010 [2] JCC 910 has held as under:-
8. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that minimum sentence under the PFA Act is six months, therefore, this Court cannot reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
9. To rebut this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on Vir Singh Chauhan vs. State reported in 1996 (1) FAC 101, Rajesh Kumar vs. State reported in 2004 (1) JCC 322, Sita Ram vs. State reported in 2004 (1) JCC 321, Ashok Kumar vs. State reported in 2001(2) FAC 247 and Manohar Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 2001(2) FAC 248, has contended that in peculiar facts of a case, sentence can be reduced even below the minimum prescribed period under the PFA Act.
10. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties on the point of sentence and I have also perused the judgments rendered by this Court reliance whereupon has been placed by the petitioner.
11. Petitioner is aged about sixty years; his ailing wife is totally dependent upon him. Incident has become two decades old. Therefore, it would not be justifiable to send the petitioner to jail at this stage.
12. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, I reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. So far as sentence and fine is concerned, same is maintained as it is.
13. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
9. In Brij Bhushan v. State (Through PFA Department) 2011 (1) JCC 235 this Court has held as under:
