2000 JTR(SC) 221
2000 2 AICLR 352 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 3416 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 1883 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 203 ; 2000 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1239 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 32 ; 2000 CrLJ 2777 ; 2000 3 JT 395 ; 2000 9 SCC 151 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1184 ; 2000 KHC 1420 ; 2000 1 KLT(Online) 929 ; 2000 6 Supreme 338 ; 2000 8 Supreme 9
2000(6) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Santosh Kumar -Appellant
versus
Municipal Corporation & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1385 of 1999
Decided on 31-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Respondent No. 2 : State : Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.433, S.433(d)
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT : S.16(1)(a), S.7(1)
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof, which criminalizes the sale of food articles that fail to meet prescribed standards or are injurious to health. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine was imposed under this provision. The appeal invoked Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a higher court to commute the sentence of imprisonment for an offence if the accused is convicted and the sentence is disproportionate or if mitigating circumstances exist, as was previously extended in the decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara.
(B) Key legal principles include that marginal adulteration not posing immediate health risk may warrant a proportionate sentence under the CrPC, and appellate courts may commute rigorous imprisonment to a fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 where the offence is non-violent and the accused has already undergone trial and conviction.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sold ground-nut oil that was found to have marginally low constituents, with analysis showing B.R. reading of 58.8, Iodine Value of 100.8, Saponification Value of 180.6, Free fatty acids as Oleic acid at 0.3%, and Bellier test turbidity at 23.8oC. The offence was alleged to have occurred in 1983, and the food article was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the prescribed standard very marginally, without containing any foreign substance or anything injurious to health. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 2000, a conviction that was confirmed in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court was persuaded that the case was analogous to the earlier decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara, and that the facts justified commuting the sentence under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court directed the appellant to deposit a fine of Rs. 10,000 within 6 weeks, and on deposit, the State Government may formalise the order commuting the imprisonment sentence while the appellant remains on bail.
Issues:
Whether an offence under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involving marginal adulteration attracts a sentence of rigorous imprisonment that can be commuted to a fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the benefit extended in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara is applicable to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involves only marginal adulteration without any injurious substance and the accused has already been convicted, the appellate court may commute the rigorous imprisonment to a monetary fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, guided by the principles laid down in the earlier decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment is commuted to a fine of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited within 6 weeks, and the appellant is released on bail with the fine deposited, subject to formalisation by the State Government.
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof, which criminalizes the sale of food articles that fail to meet prescribed standards or are injurious to health. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine was imposed under this provision. The appeal invoked Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers a higher court to commute the sentence of imprisonment for an offence if the accused is convicted and the sentence is disproportionate or if mitigating circumstances exist, as was previously extended in the decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara.
(B) Key legal principles include that marginal adulteration not posing immediate health risk may warrant a proportionate sentence under the CrPC, and appellate courts may commute rigorous imprisonment to a fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 where the offence is non-violent and the accused has already undergone trial and conviction.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sold ground-nut oil that was found to have marginally low constituents, with analysis showing B.R. reading of 58.8, Iodine Value of 100.8, Saponification Value of 180.6, Free fatty acids as Oleic acid at 0.3%, and Bellier test turbidity at 23.8oC. The offence was alleged to have occurred in 1983, and the food article was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the prescribed standard very marginally, without containing any foreign substance or anything injurious to health. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 2000, a conviction that was confirmed in appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court was persuaded that the case was analogous to the earlier decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara, and that the facts justified commuting the sentence under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court directed the appellant to deposit a fine of Rs. 10,000 within 6 weeks, and on deposit, the State Government may formalise the order commuting the imprisonment sentence while the appellant remains on bail.
Issues:
Whether an offence under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involving marginal adulteration attracts a sentence of rigorous imprisonment that can be commuted to a fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the benefit extended in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara is applicable to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involves only marginal adulteration without any injurious substance and the accused has already been convicted, the appellate court may commute the rigorous imprisonment to a monetary fine under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, guided by the principles laid down in the earlier decision of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment is commuted to a fine of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited within 6 weeks, and the appellant is released on bail with the fine deposited, subject to formalisation by the State Government.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Appellant stood convicted under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara1. The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article - ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the standard very marginally. To convince us of the said contention learned counsel produced a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis is incorporated therein as follows :
"(a) B.R. reading to 40oC 58.8
(b) Iodine Value 100.8
(c) Saponification Value 180.6
(d) Free fatty acids as Oleic acid 0.3%
(e) Bellier test (Turbidity temp. Acetic acid method) 23.8oC"
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, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs.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 under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.
6. With this end result, this appeal stands disposed of.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
***************