Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Hasim vs State Of U.P. on 21 November, 2022
Author: Saroj Yadav
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 278 of 2008 Revisionist :- Mohd. Hasim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kr. Singh,Jitendra Bahadur Singh,Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
(Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2022) Since the appeal has been decided finally, hence the bail application has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is rejected as having become infructuous.
.
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J) Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Shukla .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 278 of 2008 Revisionist :- Mohd. Hasim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kr. Singh,Jitendra Bahadur Singh,Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. This revision has been filed under Section 397 readwith Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgement and order dated 19.5.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.3/2001 : Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. whereby the judgement and order dated 9.2.2001 passed by Ist A.C.J.M./Economic Offences, District Barabanki passed in Case No.2238 of 1999 was partly allowed but dismissed for conviction and sentence for substantive offence. In this matter, the revisionist, a milk vendor was stopped by Food Inspector on 27.5.1999 at 8.00 a.m. The sample of milk was taken by him and sent for chemical examination as per procedure. In chemical examination, ingredients of milk were found below the standard required. The fat was found nil. The revisionist was tried for the offences under Sections 7(1) (v) /16 (1) (A) (1) (II) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (in short Act). He was found guilty and was sentenced by the Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Economic Offences, Barabanki with nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1500/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of one and half month. Being aggrieved of the judgement and order passed by the Ist A.C.J.M./ Economic Offences, Barabanki, the revisionist preferred an Appeal No.3 of 2001 : Mohd. Hashim Vs. State of U.P. which was partly allowed and rejected for conviction and sentence for substantive offence, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Barabanki. Being aggrieved of that judgement and order, this revision has been preferred by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that she does not challenge the impugned judgement and order on merits. She prayed for release of the revisionist only for the period undergone and on depositing the fine imposed. She submitted that the incident relates back to 27.5.1999 when the sample was collected by the Food Inspector and ingredients were found below standard. She further submitted that the trial could be completed consuming two years and thereafter the appeal filed by the revisionist could be decided after seven years i.e. 19.5.2008. She further submitted that now this revision is pending since the year 2008. Almost 23 years have passed. The revisionist has suffered a lot. He remained in jail ; during trial for some days in the beginning. Thereafter, he further remained in jail for 18 days on non bailable warrant issued by the trial court. Now again, the appellant is in jail since 31.10.2022 on being arrested on non bailable warrant issued by this court. So it is humbly prayed that he should be released after punishing him with period undergone and with fine imposed by the trial court. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for release of the revisionist on the basis of period undergone but could not dispute the above facts. it is apparent from the record that the incident relates back to the year 1999 when the sample was collected by the Food Inspector on 27.5.1999. In the chemical examination of the sample taken, the sample was not found fit according to the standard required, specially the fat was found nil. The trial court delivered its judgement on 9.2.2001. Thereafter appeal was preferred. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 decided the appeal on 19.5.2008 i.e. after seven years of passing the judgement by the trial court. Now this revision is pending since the year 2008. The revisionist remained in jail as stated above. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the period of detention of the revisionist, it appears just that while maintaining the conviction of the revisionist, the revisionist be sentenced for the period undergone by him and the fine imposed by the trial court. This revision is decided in the aforesaid terms.
The revisionist shall be released on deposition of fine imposed by the trial court, if not deposited earlier, if not required in any other case. Let a copy of this judgement alongwith original record be sent back forthwith to the trial court concerned for information and necessary action. .
(Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J) Order Date :- 21.11.2022 Shukla