MOHD ISHAQ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the revisionist fairly stated that in the revision filed under sections 397 & 401 of Code of Criminal of Procedure re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. He further stated that no jurisdictional or legal error was committed by both the Courts below while holding the accused of guilty of the offence under sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He further submitted that revisionist has already undergone for about two months while total sentence was of three months. Mr. Kailash Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist further stated that since it was first offence by the revisionist, hence, courts below should have released the revisionist on probation for good conduct for the period of two years. Mr. Kailash Joshi, alternatively suggests that sentence for the period already undergone would be sufficient and no useful purpose will be served in sending the revisionist in jail after 18 years as the offence was committed in the year 1991. 2

(2.) Mr. Nandan Arya, fairly suggested that sentence for the period three months should be modified and reduced for the period already undergone by the revisionist. He further states that no useful purpose will be served in sending the revisionist to jail after 18 years that too in offence under sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) With the agreement of both the counsels, I modify the order dated 06.08.1998 passed by Trial Court to the extent that sentence of three months is reduced for the term already undergone by the revisionist. Revisionist need not surrender before the Trial Court. However, rest of the judgment passed by both the Courts below are upheld.