OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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.