Nand Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Nand Lal ... Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant was convicted of an offence

committed on 27th November, 1983, under Sections

7(1) and 2(1)(m) of the Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954. The Appellant was running

a grocery shop near the Roadways Bus Stand in

Roorkee, District Saharanpur (now within Haridwar 2

District in Uttrakhand). The Respondent No.2, who

was a Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Roorkee, at the

relevant point of time, went to the Appellant's

shop on the aforesaid date and found the Appellant

selling and exhibiting mustard oil for sale. The

Respondent No.2 purchased 375 grams of mustard oil

from the Appellant and obtained a receipt from him.

Subsequently, on the report of the Central Food

Laboratory, Kolkata, the Appellant was charged

under Section 7(1) read with Section 2(1)(m) of the

aforesaid Act and on being convicted by the Special

Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Roorkee,

was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment

and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment

of such fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a further period of six months.

3. The Appellant preferred an appeal against the

said order of the learned Magistrate before the

IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, 3

Saharanpur, being Criminal Appeal No.168 of 1986,

which was dismissed on 7th January, 1988. Aggrieved

by the said order of the learned Additional

District & Sessions Judge, the Appellant filed a

revision petition before the Allahabad High Court

in 2004, being Crl. Revision No.195 of 2004. Upon

bifurcation of the State, the said revision

petition stood transferred to the Uttranchal High

Court and was dismissed on 23rd March, 2006. The

said order of dismissal of the revision petition

filed by the Appellant is the subject matter of the

present Appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant

urged that the Appellant had been wrongly convicted

of the offence alleged against him since the

mustard oil in question had been purchased by the

Appellant from the open market and was not meant

for human consumption, but to be used for lighting

lamps during Deepawali. It may immediately be 4

indicated that the said defence of the Appellant

was not accepted by the Trial Court, the Appellate

Court or the High Court. Learned counsel then

pleaded that since the incident is alleged to have

taken place about 27 years ago, the sentence of the

Appellant may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him. In fact, notice was issued on

29th September, 2006, on the said ground.

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

appeal to the extent that while maintaining the 5

conviction of the Appellant, we reduce his sentence

to the period already undergone.

7. Let the Appellant be discharged from his bail

bonds.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated: 05.04.2010.