Allahabad High Court
R.S. Yadav vs State on 16 April, 2026
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:86224
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2461 of 1988
R.S. Yadav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Janardan Sahai, Mukul Yadav, Sushil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 82
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.10.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act in Special Case No. 28 of 1987 (State Vs. Ravender Singh) whereby convicting the appellant under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act to undergo for rigorous imprisonment of one year.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that from the date of judgement and order of conviction, more than 38 years have elapsed and the appellant is an old ailing person of more than 75 years of age, who is suffering from old age ailments and is unable to walk and therefore, sentence of punishment may be converted into fine. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (49) ACC 539 in the matter of Majister @ Budhpal versus State of U.P. wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that 19 years have elapsed since the date of revision and the accused was on bail during the pendency of revision and therefore, sending the accused to jail after lapse of 17 years would be against humanitarian approach and therefore, liberty was given to avail the benefit of provisions of Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment was converted into fine.
4. Paragraph 8, relevant part of paragraph-9 and paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder:-
"8. Section 433 (d) aforesaid provides for commutation of sentence of simple imprisonment for fine by the appropriate Government. In the leading case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, the Supreme Court in such circumstances provided such relief as being permissible to an accused. Para 3 of the judgment is extracted below-
"The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
9. In the case of Maqbool Ahamed v. State of U.P.(supra), learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, altered the sentence awarded in such a case of food adulteration to the accused to six months simple imprisonment and also directed the State Government that instead of sentence of actual imprisonment he would pay fine which shall be deposited within stipulated period and then he would move an application before the State Government which on receipt of such application shall formalize the matter under the provisions of section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. In the case of Prem Chand v. State of U.P. (supra) and Roop Chand v. State of U.P. (supra), learned single Judge has also preferred to adopt the same view of the matter to provide benefit of alternative to the accused under Section 433(d) aforesaid for the purposes to avoid his further sufferance in jail, which in the circumstances of the aforesaid case was not justified."
Reduction of sentence, as awarded in such case under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is permitted as has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of W.B. and another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 678.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the averments contained in the present appeal, this Court is of the opinion that as 38 years have elapsed since the date of judgment and the appellant has remained on bail during the pendency of appeal this Court thinks appropriate for commutation of sentence whereby about four decades is going to be concluded.
6. This Court, therefore, directs the appellant to deposit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badaun a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of awarded by the trial Court within a period of two months from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. With the aforesaid directions, present appeal is finally disposed of.
8. The accused-appellant-Ravindra Singh Yadav is on bail, therefore, he need not to surrender and the sureties shall also stand discharged. Subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
9. The trial Court record along with the copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) April 16, 2026 S.Ali