LexEKNATH SHANKARRAO MUKKAWAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y
r
EKNATH SHANKARRAO MUKKAWAR
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
April 12, 1977
5!3
{Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAM! AND P. N. SHI:-IGHAL, JJ.]
Re1·lsional jurisdiction-Suo motu po!v~rs of tire 1/ig!J Court to wlrancc
sentence-Power not takm away by proi'ISI0/1 for appeal against illlldtquacy of
se111ence by the Stale Govemml'llt or the Central Govermncnt-Crlrni~~al Pro-
cl'durc Coac. C1ct ll of 1974), 1973, section 397 read with s. 401 (Section
435/-439, CmmtUJI Proctdure Code, 1898).
Crfminal Procedure fode (Act 11 of 1974), 1973, Section 317(1), (21-
Meanmg of the words by any other a~~ncy empowered to make investi~atiolt
into any oOem:_e under any Central Act"-lm•estigation under Pr.,·emion cf
Pood Adulterntton Act by Food lttrpcctors-Sution 377(1) and not.._ 377(2)
o!rh1 Cr. P. C. applies-Appeal at the instance of State Go>•ernrnent is main-
laiTUJble.
Prc•·emion of Food Adulteration Act,
1954, Section 16(1), Pro•·i.<o [-
Power to impose S<"lltence less thatt minintttm-lnrerference by appellate ccmrt.
'
Appeal against inadequacy of scllfcnce-Power of court to alter cotll'l'ction
to an aggral'ated caregory-CrimiMI Procedure Code (Act II of 197-4), 1973,
Section 377- Scope of.
Practice and precedents-Binding effect of decisiOIIS of coordinate court.
· The llppcllant nnd his !.1ther were t:harged u/s. 2(1) (c) of the Prc\-ention
of Food Adulteration Act, 19j.f for adulteration of chilly powder. The &le
of chilli powder which was seiud by the Food ln.sP.ector on April 13, 1974
cont<aincd 37.25% of the total ash against the permis~1ble pert:entage or 8%. It
Y.lS atakd in the Analyst"5 nport that the percentage of e.,tr:tneou5 matter which
\\&s common salt mixed with the chilli power was 32.-4%. The judicial magis-
Irate, Udgir, found that the chilli powder wu adulterated within the meaning of
1. 2(i) of the Act and convicted the appellant under e. 16(1) Cal (i), proviso
I of the Pre~ention of Food Adulterauon Act, 1954 r/w s. 2(1)(1) and s.
7(1) !J( the •~id Act and sentenced him to simple imprt~onment Ill! the risin~:
of the court and to pay a lin.: of Ks. SOO /· nnd in default rigor~ us lmprisooment
lor two month~. T~ 11ppellant's fnther was, however. ncqu1tted. The St:ttc
of Aiahara.htra preferred an appeal agrunst the order of acqUittal of the father
Hod again,! the m~dequacy of the bCntence awarded to the appellant. The H1gh
Olurt di.!m~ the appeal agairut acquittal of th~ appe!laot's father but allow~.!
the appeal of the State '"'ith regard to the inadequacy o~ the sentef!Ce. A!lifl!l-
ina the conviction of the appelluot under s. 16(1) (a) (1) r/w sectJo~ 2(1)(•).
and 7(1) of the Act, the High Court enhanc~ the senl~!1c¢ to. slX, months
~imple imprisonment and a line of Rs. 1000/-, 1n default s•mple 1mpnsooment
'"' two months.
Allowin1: the appeal by •reciul leave, the Court,
HElD : (I) The new Code uf Criminlll Procedure, 1973 ha~ .not a~l~<i
rbe High Court'a pov.·er of enhancement of senten.ce ~y exercJSm8 f re~•on_a
iurbdktion suo mo1u. The provi~ion for appeal IIIJ111nsJ madc~u)cJd ~0 se~u~h'~
by the SUite Government or the Central Government
Dell no1 e
riat"
concJu\ioo. High Courts power of enhan~mef!l o! se~i:~~"u/~
83~7~~~~:P with
':lee by exerciiina 3UO motu power of revrsloo 11 btill ctho High. cOurt eao "by
~· . ~! Criminal Procedure Code, l:J-3, tna;~~~ h':fcrior criminal court under
lllielf e:..ll for the record of proce 101l' 0 Is
bar to a party who d<lell not
its Jurudictlon. The provision of': -401 (-4) . ~
·such 8 legal bar under
app~:<~[ when appeal liCll, . but applies tot! ~u
15~
0Court's exorcise of power of
' · ~~1(4) d~ not atand m t~ wnr .o.! .. r'~ ingtho new Code.l'-''H, $46A.CJ
tev~•on s11o molu, wbkh c:ontlnu~ a> "" 0
-. ·--- -~----- -:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
} .
1.·
~·
' I, r
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
(2) Under sub-section (l) of s. 377, the State Government has a right to
appeal against the inadequacy of sentence in all cases other than those referred
to in sub-section (2) of that section. The true test under s. 377(2) Criminal
Procedure Code is whether the offence is investigated by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment or is investigated by any other agency empowered to make
investigation under any Central Act other than the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In other words, just like s. 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
there should be an express provision in an Act Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.