LexMOHD. YASEEN versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MOHD. YASEEN v. STATEOFU.P. JULY 17, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482-Appellant convicted under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954---Conviction upheld by Appellate C Court-Revision rejected-Petition u/s. 482 to recall that order-High Court held that once the appeal has been decided on merits, it is not open to exercise power under s. 482-Held: High Court right in holding that the application under s. 482 is to be dismissed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-s. 20AA-Adulteration in D food-Accused raising plea of being under age of 18 years on the date of !- occurrence and seeking grant of probation-Question relating to age of the +- E accused not considered in proper perspective by First Appellate Court and High Court-Held, the issue was vital-Hence matter remanded to High Court. Appellant was convicted under ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He filed appeal but the same was dismissed. Revision petition subsequently filed before the High Court was rejected. Petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed to recall the order. High Court dismissed the petition holding that F once the appeal has been decided on merits, power u/s. 482 CrPC could not be exercised. In appeals to this Court it is contended that the High Court erred in holding that s.482, CrPC had no role to play and further that the age of --Appellant being less than 18 years on the date ofoccurrence, s. 20AA of the G Act was applicable and probation was to be granted. H Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court held that once the appeal has been decided on merits it is not open to exercise power under Section 482, CrPC. The High 380 f MOHD. YASEENv. STATEOFU.P.[PASAYAT,J.) 381 Court rightly observed that the application under Section 482, CrPC is to bti A dismissed. (Paras 5 and 9J (382-F, G; 383-F) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agrawal, AIR (1979) SC 87 and Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors., JT (2000) Supp 2 SC 394, relied on. 2. However, it is a case where question n:lating to age of the accused- appellant has not been considered in the proper perspective by the first Appellate Court and the High Court. If the appellant succeeds in showing that B he was less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence the applicability of Section 20AA of the Act has to be considered. This plea was not specifically C taken before the trial Court and only some documents were filed betore the First Appellate Court The trial Court did not get the opportunity to examine the same. The First Appellate Court did not find any substance in the plea ~s the documents were not proved. Since it is a vital issue which has substantial bearing on the subject matter of dispute, the matter is remanded to the High Court to consider acceptability of the plea relating to age and decide the matter D afresh in accordance with law. [Para 11 [ (384-A, B, q CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1039 of 2001. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2000 & 27 .7.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5720 of E 2000. WITH Crl. A. No. I 040 of 200 l. B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh and Goodwill lndeevar for the Appellant. S. W.A. Qadri and Pradeep Misra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. l. These two appeals are inter-linked. T~e order under challenge in Crl. A. No. I 039 of 200 l relates to an order dat¢d 15.12.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The said application was filed to recall F G the order dated 27. 7 .2000 passed in Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1986. The H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 8 S.C.R. A said order is the subject matter of challenge in Crl. A. No. I 040 of200 I. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 2. The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). The learned Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bareilly, found the B accused guilty and convicted him as afore-noted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for- one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.