Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 534 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Om Prakash
RESPONDENT:
State (NCT) of Delhi
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/06/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the
Criminal Revision petition filed by the appellant. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi had found the accused-
appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 7(1) read
with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954 (in short ’the Act’). He had sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-
with default stipulations. An appeal was carried and the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Criminal
Appeal No.61 of 1999, dismissed the same holding that the
offence was made out. As noted above, a revision petition was
filed before the High Court which was dismissed summarily.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 27.11.1984, the Food Inspector purchased a sample
of Khoya from the appellant. The Public Analyst found that the
milk fat of the finished product was 19.07% as against the
minimum prescribed standard of 20%. The appellant exercised
his right under Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellant faced
trial. As noted above, the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted
the appellant and sentenced him. The appeal filed before
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was
dismissed. A stand was taken before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge that in view of several decisions of this Court,
there should be commutation of sentence. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge held that the commutation of
sentence under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short the ’Cr.P.C.) was a matter within the discretion
of State Government. The appellant filed criminal revision
which was dismissed, as noted above.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court, by a non-reasoned order, dismissed the revision
petition, though in similar cases it had passed orders following
the decision of this Court in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food
Inspector, Mavehkara (1997 (9) SCC 101). Learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that the exercise of power under
Section 433 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and no direction can be
given to commute the sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the benefit as given by this Court in N. Sukumaran Nair’s case
(supra) and Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(2000 (9) SCC 151). The plea is made on the ground that the
occurrence took place in 1984 and the margin of variation is
very small.
5. It is pointed out that the appellant has already suffered
custody for more than three months. We direct that a sum of
Rs.7,500/-, as fine, be deposited within a period of six weeks
from today. The appellant shall move the appropriate
Government for commutation of the custodial sentence. On
the deposit of the above amount being made within the
stipulated time and the appropriate application being made
the State Government may consider whether commutation can
be done in view of the peculiar facts of the case by passing an
appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the
Cr.P.C. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain on bail.
6. With this end result, the appeal stands disposed of.