Sita Ram Vs. State

Sita Ram vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 14, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/684755

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/684755
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jan 14, 2004
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 464 of 2000
Subject: Criminal;Food Adulteration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2(ia), (a), (j), (1), 7, 16(1)(1A)--Reduction of sentence--Offence committed in the year 1986--Petitioner has already suffered the rigours of trial for nearly 18 years--Petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for twenty-two days and has been on bail since 1....

Key legal issue: Criminal;Food Adulteration
Acts & sections: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 7, 16(1) and 16(1A)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sita Ram

Advocate P.R. Thakur, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 7, 16(1) and 16(1A)
Cases Referred: and Nand Lal v. State of Haryana
Reported In: 2004(73)DRJ382

Excerpt

prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 - sections 2(ia), (a), (j), (1), 7, 16(1)(1a)--reduction of sentence--offence committed in the year 1986--petitioner has already suffered the rigours of trial for nearly 18 years--petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for twenty-two days and has been on bail since 1.11.2000 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this court--order of conviction is upheld and sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. - .....under the act, however, the supreme court has, in braham dass v. state of himachal pradesh, : 1988 crilj1816 and haripada das v. state of west bengal air 1999 sc 1482, held that a sentence below the minimum prescribed can also be passed in the facts and circumstances of a case. he also relies upon a large number of judgments in b. uma maheshwara rao v. state of a.p. 2003 (3) fac 78, gurdev singh v. u.t. chandigarh 2003 (1) fac 105; sher singh v. state of u.t. chandigarh 2003 (1) fac 210; mohinder lal v. state of haryana 2003 (1) fac 70; ishwar singh v. the state of haryana 1994 (1) rcr 161; sat pal v. state of haryana 1998 (1) rcr (cri.) 75; manoj kumar v. state of haryana 1998 (1) rcr (cri.) 563; chander bhan v. state of haryana 1996 (1) rcr 125; des raj v. state of haryana 1996 (1) rcr 689 and nand lal v. state of haryana 1992 (1) pfa 180.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence was committed in the year 1986 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigours of trial for nearly 18 years. he submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for twenty-two days and has been on bail since 1.11.2000 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this court. he submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the main stream of the society as a useful citizen, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. he prays that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone.4. having heard learned counsel for the parties, i am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. it is ordered accordingly.5. with this modification, criminal revision no. 464 of 2000 is disposed of. the bail bond and the surety shall stand.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of the order dated 28.5.1990 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 7/16(1)(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of Section 2(ia), (a), (j), (1) of the Act and further vide order dated 30.5.1998 sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.10.2000 dismissed the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction. He confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, however, the Supreme Court has, in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, : 1988 CriLJ1816 and Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1482, held that a sentence below the minimum prescribed can also be passed in the facts and circumstances of a case. He also relies upon a large number of judgments in B. Uma Maheshwara Rao v. State of A.P. 2003 (3) FAC 78, Gurdev Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh 2003 (1) FAC 105; Sher Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh 2003 (1) FAC 210; Mohinder Lal v. State of Haryana 2003 (1) FAC 70; Ishwar Singh v. The State of Haryana 1994 (1) RCR 161; Sat Pal v. State of Haryana 1998 (1) RCR (Cri.) 75; Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana 1998 (1) RCR (Cri.) 563; Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) RCR 125; Des Raj v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) RCR 689 and Nand Lal v. State of Haryana 1992 (1) PFA 180.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence was committed in the year 1986 and the petitioner has already suffered the rigours of trial for nearly 18 years. He submits that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for twenty-two days and has been on bail since 1.11.2000 and that there has been no complaint about his having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the petitioner is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the main stream of the society as a useful citizen, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. He prays that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the order of conviction is upheld and sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.

5. With this modification, Criminal Revision No. 464 of 2000 is disposed of. The bail bond and the surety shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Sita Ram vs State Same Subject Criminal;Food Adulteration Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 7, 16...

Criminal;Food Adulteration