REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      869          OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2943 of 2008)

State of Rajasthan                 ….Appellant  

Versus

Jagdish Prasad  ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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’)  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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

(in short the ‘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) SCC 101).  

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.  

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  has  been  sentenced  to  undergo  6  months’  rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence.  We are not inclined to modify the 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 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  

2

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.”

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  

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  

the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.  

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.  

..…..……………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………..…………….............J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)           

New Delhi, April 29, 2009

3