Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shish Ram Vs. State

Shish Ram vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 02, 2001
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/688048

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 537/2000
Subject
Criminal;Food Adulteration

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 433(c)--Power to commute sentence--Conviction Under Section 16/1(1A) r.w.s. 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954--Sentence and fine--Appeal for suitable directions for commuting the sentence--Appellant aged of 19 years only and absolutely clean antecedents--Already s...

Key legal issue
Criminal;Food Adulteration
Acts & sections
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 7 and 16/1(1A); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 433

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shish Ram

Advocate Ms. Ritu Gauba, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation and
Reported In
2001IVAD(Delhi)173; 91(2001)DLT410

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 433(c)--power to commute sentence--conviction under section 16/1(1a) r.w.s. 7 of prevention of food adulteration act, 1954--sentence and fine--appeal for suitable directions for commuting the sentence--appellant aged of 19 years only and absolutely clean antecedents--already suffered pain and agony of trial of 12 years--in custody for more than five months--allowed--since in sample nothing injurious to health was found--sentence commuted for the period already undergone--fine of 5,000 enhanced to rs. 10,000/--petition disposed of. - - 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. 4. dusty as well......government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of section 433 of the code of criminal procedure.'and in santosh kumar vs. municipal corporation and another 2000 (2) fac 76 wherein it was held:'4. this case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. we are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this court, as this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence under clause (d) of section 433 of the code of criminal procedure.5. we, thereforee, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of rupees 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. on deposit of the fine the state government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order clause (d) of section 433 of the code of criminal procedure. in the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.'2. in this case, admittedly, the offence was committed more than 12 years ago; in the sample nothing injurious to health was found and the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 4-1/2 months ri. in view of the peculiar facts of this case, i am inclined to direct that the sentence of the petitioner be commuted to the period already undergone and the sentence, fine of rs.5,000/- is enhanced to rs.10,000/-. let the fine be deposited within two week and on the fine being deposited, the state government may formalise the matter by passing an appropriate order under clause (c) of section 433 cr.pc.3. in the meantime the sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended for a period of two months on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.4. dusty as well.5. petition stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J

1. Admit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the point involved in this petition is very short and the same can be disposed of at this stage itself. `This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2000 passed by the court of Sh.R K Gaubha Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 16/1(1A) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954(for short PFA Act) for violation of S.2(ia)(a)(b)(c) (j) & (m) and the sentence of R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default further SI for 6 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has preferred not to challenge the conviction of the petitioner but has only prayed for suitable directions for commuting the sentence of RI to fine under clause (c) of Section 433 Cr.PC. It is argued that in this case samples in question were lifted on 30th September, 1988 when the petitioner was young boy of 19 years and absolutely clean antecedents and the petitioner has suffered the pain and agony of trial for more that 12 years and that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 5 months and that the sample was found adulterated because of the presence of paddy husk and rice stanch. Reliance is placed on two Supreme Court decisions N Sukumaran Nair vs.Food Inspector Navelikara 1996 Vol.2 Cases, 21 Wherein it was held:-

'The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, thereforee, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs.6000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.'

and in Santosh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation and another 2000 (2) FAC 76 wherein it was held:

'4. This case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this court, as this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. We, thereforee, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rupees 10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.'

2. In this case, admittedly, the offence was committed more than 12 years ago; in the sample nothing injurious to health was found and the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of 4-1/2 months RI. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, I am inclined to direct that the sentence of the petitioner be commuted to the period already undergone and the sentence, fine of Rs.5,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Let the fine be deposited within two week and on the fine being deposited, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing an appropriate order under clause (c) of Section 433 Cr.PC.

3. In the meantime the sentence awarded to the appellant is suspended for a period of two months on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

4. dusty as well.

5. Petition stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial