OM PRAKASH versus STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 05-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH 
v. 
ST A TE (NCT) OF DELHI 
JUNE 5, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:-
s. 7(1) rlw s.16-Milk in 'Khoya' sold by accused found to be 19.075 
C as against minimum prescribed standard of 20'Yo-Conviction by Trial Court 
and sentence of 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20001-imposed by 
Trial Court-Plea for commutation of sentence on grounds of incident being 
of 1984 and margin of variation being very small-Held : Accused has 
already suffered custody for more than three months-On deposit of a sum 
D of Rs. 7,5001- as fine and an appropriate application being made, State 
Government may consider to pass an appropriate order uls. 433(d) Cr. P.C.-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s 433 (d). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
E 
s. 433(d)-Power to commute sentence-Held: On deposit of fine and 
on application being made by accused as indicated in the judgment, the 
State Government may consider to pass an appropriate order under the 
provision. 
Appellant faced trial for an offence punishable u/s. 7(1) read with s.16 
F of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The prosecution case was 
that the sample of 'Khoya' purchased by Food Inspector from the appellant on 
27-11-1984 was found containing milk fat 19.07% as against the minimum 
prescribed standard of 20%. The Trial Court convicted the appellant of the 
offence charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and to 
G pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions 
Judge. As regards the plea for commut2tion of sentence u/s. 433, Cr. P.C., it 
was held that it was matter within the discretion of the State Government. 
The criminal revision having been dismissed by the High Court, the accused ' 
filed the instant appeal. 
( 
H 
958 
, __
-
OM PRAKASH v. ST ATE (NCT) OF DELHI [PASAYA T. J.] 
959 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: The appellant has already suffered custody for more than three 
months. He is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as fine. On the deposit 
of the amount being made within the stipulated time and the appropriate 
application being made by the appellant, the State Go·.-ernment may consider 
B 
whether communication can be done in view of the peculiar facts of the case 
of passing an appropriate order under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr. 
P.C. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain on ball . 
.-> 
!Para 511960-E, F, GI 
";' 
N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavehkara, 1199719SCC101 c 
and Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation and Anr., 120001 9 SCC 151, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 
2001. 
From the Order dated 22.11.2000 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal D 
Revision No. 531 of 2000. 
Ghan Singh Vashisht. R.P. Kaushik, Om Prakash Mishra, Deepak Thukral 
and Amit Singh for the Appellant. 
Ashok Bhan, S. Wasim A. Qadri for D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the 
Criminal Revision petition filed by the appellant. The learned Metropolitan 
F 
Magistrate, New Delhi had found the accused-appellant guilty of offences 
~ 
punishable under Section 7( I) read with Section 16 of the Prevention off ood 
_4 
Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). He had sentenced him to undergo 
imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default 
stipulations. An appeal was carried and the learned Additional Sessions 
Judge, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No.61. of 1999, dismissed the same G 
holding that the offence was made out. As noted above, a revision petition 
was filed before the High Court which was dismissed summarily. 
I 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 27 .11.1984, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of Khoya from H 
I 
~. 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 7 S.C.R. 
A the appellant. The Public Analyst found that the milk fat of the finished 
product was 19.07% as against the minimum prescribed standard of20%. The 
.... 
appellant exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellant 
faced trial. 
As noted above, the Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the 
appellant and sentenced him. The appeal filed before the learned Additional 
B 
Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was dismissed. A stand was taken before the 
learned Addit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.