STATE OF RAJASTHANversusJAGDISH PRASAD

                            [2009] 7 S.C.R. 175


                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN                            A
                                    v
                       JAGDISH PRASAD
                 Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2009

                            APRIL 29, 2009
                                                                    B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]        L·
                                            -~   ~,




          Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - ss. 7 and 16


-   - Conviction under and imposition of six months RI - High-
    Court commuting sentence of six months for fine - C
    Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Strict adherence to
    the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
    safeguarding interest of consumers of articles of food -
    Stringent laws will have no meaning if offender could get away -
    with fine - Order of sentence by trial court upheld - For period D
    of three months, accused given liberty to move the appropriate
    Government for commutation - Accused not to surrender
    during the said period to undergo sentence - Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 - s.433 .,.. Sentence/sentencing -
    Commutation of.                                                  E
          Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (5) SCC 721 -
    relied on

         Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mave/ikara 1997 (9) -
    sec 101 - referred to          .                            F
                       Case Law Reference
         1997 (9) sec 101           Referred to       Para 2
         2004 (5) sec 121           Relied on         Para 5
                                                                    G
,        CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
    No. 869 of 2009                ·        -

         From the Judgement and Order dated 12.01.2007 of the
                                                      ),\


                                   175                              H
    176       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 7 S.C.R.


A Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B.     •
  Criminal Revision Petition No. 270 of 1995.
          Milind Kumar, for the Appellant.
          Naresh Bakshi, for the Respondent.
B         The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
          1. Leave granted.

c       2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned        ,.
  Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. By the
  impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the
  conviction for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of
  the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act')
D
  imposed fine of Rs.6,000/- and directed that the same is in          •
  commutation of the sentence of six months RI as awarded by
  learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was further directed
  that the appropriate Government shall formalize the matter by
  passing of an appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section
  433 of the Cod~ of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
E
  'Code') if the amount is deposited within a particular period.
  For the aforesaid purpose the High Court relied on a decision
  of this Court in Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara
  (1997 ((9) sec 101).

F        3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
    the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable.
        4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
    supported the judgment.

G        5. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004 (5) SCC
    721) it was inter-alia observed as follows:
          "15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the
          offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months'
          rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant
H         has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous
                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. JAGDISH PRASAD             177
                              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] .

                 imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not A
                 inclined to modify fhe sentence by passing an order of the
                 nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair where this Court in
                 exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a
                 sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its
                 powers under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal B
                 Procedure to commute the sentence of simple
...              imprisonment for fine. In the instant case, the appellant
                 has been sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous
                 imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that
                 strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration     c
               . Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for
                 safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food.
                 Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get
                 away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to
                 interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant."
                                                                             0
                 6. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The
          sentence as imposed by the trial Court is restored. However,
          since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if
          the accused-respondent moves the appropriate Government
          to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be E
          considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three
          months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence
          during which period it shall be open to him to move the
          appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the
          matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate Government F
          the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder
          of sentence.
                  7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

          N.J .                                            Appeal allowed.
      •