State Of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The Supreme Court, per Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., granted leave in an appeal challenging a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

The respondent had been convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, awarded a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but imposed a fine of Rs 6000 in commutation of the six months' rigorous imprisonment and directed that the appropriate Government should formalise the commutation by passing an order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if the amount was deposited within a specified period. In doing so, the High Court relied on N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101.

The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court's order was unsustainable, while the respondent supported the High Court's decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, despite the statutory minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the High Court could substitute imprisonment with a fine and direct the executive to formalise commutation under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the principle articulated in Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 5 SCC 721, precludes judicial modification of a statutorily mandated minimum sentence to a mere fine in Prevention of Food Adulteration cases.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101	In that case, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, imposed only a sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its powers under Section 433 CrPC to commute a sentence of simple imprisonment for fine.	The High Court relied on this decision to commute imprisonment to a fine and to direct executive formalisation. The Supreme Court declined to follow this approach in the present matter.
Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 5 SCC 721	Where the law prescribes a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, courts should not modify the sentence to a mere fine; strict adherence to the Act and Rules is essential, and stringent laws lose meaning if offenders can escape with a fine.	The Supreme Court relied on this principle to hold that the High Court's commutation to a fine was impermissible and to restore the trial court's sentence.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101

In that case, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, imposed only a sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its powers under Section 433 CrPC to commute a sentence of simple imprisonment for fine.

The High Court relied on this decision to commute imprisonment to a fine and to direct executive formalisation. The Supreme Court declined to follow this approach in the present matter.

Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 5 SCC 721

Where the law prescribes a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, courts should not modify the sentence to a mere fine; strict adherence to the Act and Rules is essential, and stringent laws lose meaning if offenders can escape with a fine.

The Supreme Court relied on this principle to hold that the High Court's commutation to a fine was impermissible and to restore the trial court's sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court focused on the statutory framework and binding principle articulated in Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan. It noted that for the offence in question, a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law, which the trial court had imposed. The High Court, relying on N. Sukumaran Nair, substituted the imprisonment with a fine and called upon the executive to formalise commutation under Section 433(d) CrPC.

Quoting Dayal Singh, the Court reiterated that where a minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment is mandated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, courts should not reduce the punishment to a mere fine. The rationale, as emphasized in Dayal Singh, is that strict adherence to the PFA Act and its Rules is essential to protect consumers, and allowing offenders to avoid imprisonment with a fine would undermine the purpose of stringent statutory provisions.

Applying this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's approach of commuting the statutorily mandated imprisonment to a fine, and directing executive action to formalise that commutation, was unsustainable. At the same time, acknowledging the long passage of time since the offence (nearly three decades), the Court provided limited relief by allowing the respondent-accused an opportunity to approach the appropriate Government for commutation, clarifying that such a request should be considered appropriately by the executive.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: APPEAL ALLOWED; TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE RESTORED.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order substituting the mandatory imprisonment with a fine and restored the sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The Court granted the respondent-accused a period of three months during which he need not surrender, to enable him to move the appropriate Government for commutation. The executive was directed to consider any such application in the proper perspective. If no commutation order is passed within that period, the respondent must surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Implications: The decision enforces adherence to the statutory minimum sentence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and applies the principle from Dayal Singh. The immediate effect is on the parties to this case; the opinion does not discuss broader implications or set out any new rule beyond applying existing precedent.

State Of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad .

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.

2. By the impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short “the Act”) imposed a fine of Rs 6000 and directed that the same is in commutation of the sentence of six months' RI as awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was further directed that the appropriate Government shall formalise the matter by passing an appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) if the amount is deposited within a particular period. For the aforesaid purpose the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara . (1997) 9 SCC 101.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment.

4. In Dayal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan . (2004) 5 SCC 721 it was inter alia observed as follows:

“15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not inclined to modify the sentence by passing an order of the nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair (1997) 9 SCC 101 where this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its powers under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. In the instant case the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant.”

5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The sentence as imposed by the trial court is restored. However, since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if the respondent-accused moves the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence during which period it shall be open to him to move the appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate Government the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence.

6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2009, decided on April 29, 2009

State Of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Prasad .

Comments