2000 4 Crimes(SC) 32 ; 2000 CrLJ 2777 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1184 ; 2000 6 Supreme 338
2000(4) Crimes 32 (SC)
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(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) of the same Act, for the sale of adulterated ground-nut oil. The statutory framework under these sections penalizes the sale of food articles that do not meet prescribed standards. The court considered whether the marginal nature of the non-compliance and the absence of injurious substances warranted a mitigation of the sentence. Furthermore, the court invoked Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to commute a sentence of imprisonment to a fine, providing a legal mechanism for leniency based on the specific circumstances of the offense.
(B) The court recognized that where a food article is found to be adulterated solely because its constituents fall marginally below the prescribed standard, and where no foreign or injurious substances are present, the court may exercise discretion to commute the sentence of imprisonment to a fine.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of adulterating ground-nut oil and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. The appellant sought relief based on a precedent, arguing that the offense occurred in 1983 and the analysis report showed the oil contained no injurious substances and only marginally deviated from the required standards.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the facts of the case were parallel to a previously decided precedent. It observed that the analysis report indicated no harmful substances were present and the deviation from standards was minimal, making the case suitable for the commutation of the sentence.
Issues:
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be commuted to a fine under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure given the marginal nature of the adulteration.
Ratio Decidendi:
When an offense under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involves a marginal deviation from standards without the presence of harmful substances, and the case is analogous to established precedents for leniency, the sentence may be commuted to a fine under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Result:
The sentence of six months' imprisonment was commuted to a fine of Rs. 10,000, subject to the deposit of the amount and subsequent formalization by the State Government under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(A) The appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with Section 7(1) of the same Act, for the sale of adulterated ground-nut oil. The statutory framework under these sections penalizes the sale of food articles that do not meet prescribed standards. The court considered whether the marginal nature of the non-compliance and the absence of injurious substances warranted a mitigation of the sentence. Furthermore, the court invoked Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to commute a sentence of imprisonment to a fine, providing a legal mechanism for leniency based on the specific circumstances of the offense.
(B) The court recognized that where a food article is found to be adulterated solely because its constituents fall marginally below the prescribed standard, and where no foreign or injurious substances are present, the court may exercise discretion to commute the sentence of imprisonment to a fine.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of adulterating ground-nut oil and sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. The appellant sought relief based on a precedent, arguing that the offense occurred in 1983 and the analysis report showed the oil contained no injurious substances and only marginally deviated from the required standards.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the facts of the case were parallel to a previously decided precedent. It observed that the analysis report indicated no harmful substances were present and the deviation from standards was minimal, making the case suitable for the commutation of the sentence.
Issues:
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be commuted to a fine under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure given the marginal nature of the adulteration.
Ratio Decidendi:
When an offense under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act involves a marginal deviation from standards without the presence of harmful substances, and the case is analogous to established precedents for leniency, the sentence may be commuted to a fine under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Result:
The sentence of six months' imprisonment was commuted to a fine of Rs. 10,000, subject to the deposit of the amount and subsequent formalization by the State Government under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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.
Order accordingly.
(C.R.)
1. (1977) 9 SCC 1010.