LAWS(DLH)-2001-5-194

AMAR NATH BANSAL Vs. STATE

Decided On May 14, 2001
AMAR NATH BANSAL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT . Criminal Revision No. 257/2001 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 26.4.2001 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the Judgment dated 3.7.1997 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi convicting the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and further by his Order dated 4.7.1997 sentenced the petitioner to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for three months.

(2.) AT the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction. However, he submits that the offence took place as far back as on 28.6.1993 and that the petitioner has already undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly eight years. There has been no previous conviction on this account and also during the trial the petitioner has shown exemplary behaviour. It is submitted that the petitioner has given up the business of general merchant and, therefore, this would be a fit case where the petitioner is dealt with in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of M.P., 1996(2) FAC 187 (SC) where the Supreme Court, while dealing with the case similar in nature, had scaled down the sentence to enable the State Government to exercise power under Sub-clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for conversion of simple imprisonment to fine.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State submits that if leniency is shown in this case, then fine should be increased substantially.