27 October 2010
Supreme Court
Download

NAUSHAD Vs STATE OF U.P.

Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000186-000186 / 2006
Diary number: 9878 / 2004
Advocates: DINESH KUMAR GARG Vs JATINDER KUMAR BHATIA


1

CRL.A. No. 186 of 2006 1

     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2006

NAUSHAD ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The  appellant  herein  was  apprehended  by  the  Food  

Inspector on 4th August, 1981, while retailing milk.  The  

Public Analyst in his Report dated 26th August, 1981 opined  

that the milk was adulterated inasmuch as that the milk  

contained  6.7%  non-fatty  solids  which  was  below  the  

prescribed standard of 9%.  The appellant was, accordingly,  

tried and  convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention  

of  Food  Adulteration  Act,  1954  and  sentenced  to  undergo  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  six  months  and  a  fine  of  

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo  

simple  imprisonment  for  three  months.   An  appeal  was  

thereafter taken to the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar  

Nagar,  who  vide  his  judgment  dated  5th November,  1985,  

maintained  the  conviction  and  sentence.   A  revision

2

CRL.A. No. 186 of 2006 2

petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was  

also dismissed on 28th July, 2003.  This matter has been  

pending in this Court since the year 2004.  We observe that  

the findings of fact call for no interference.  However, in  

the light of the fact that the incident happened in the  

year 1981 and the appellant has been facing trial or court  

proceedings  in one forum or the other for years and that  

he is as of now 84 years of age, we feel that keeping in  

mind the observations of this Court in  Haripada Das v.  

State of W..B. & Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 678 and  Bhagwan Das  

Motulal Navalani v. State of Maharashtra (1987) 2 SCC 645  

the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced  

to that already undergone although we are conscious of the  

fact that the appellant has undergone only 15 days of the  

sentence.

With this modification, in the orders of the courts  

below, the appeal is dismissed.

........................... J

      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................... J

      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI

3

CRL.A. No. 186 of 2006 3

OCTOBER 27, 2010.