Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • V.K Jhanji
  • B. Rai, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • V.K Jhanji
  • B. Rai, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Manoj Kumar (the revisionist) was tried before Sh. B. Diwakar, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in Case No. 164/2 dated 18.11.1993 under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The charge related to alleged adulteration of cow's milk stored in about 20 bottles, displayed for public sale and kept in a refrigerator. A Food Inspector drew a sample according to the rules; analysis found the sample to be adulterated. A complaint was filed after obtaining the requisite sanction and the revisionist was convicted by the Magistrate, who sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with an additional one month rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.

The revisionist appealed (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1996) before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad. On 10.9.1997 the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, noting that the minimum statutory sentence had already been imposed and there was no cause for further leniency. Manoj Kumar filed the present revision; at the motion hearing on 24.10.1997 the revision was confined to the question of quantum of sentence. Notice was issued to the Advocate General and the State appeared through its AAG.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the quantum of sentence (the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act) could be reduced in the exercise of the Court's revisional jurisdiction on grounds of protracted trial, personal hardship, and the period already undergone.
  2. Whether established authorities (including Braham Dass and decisions of this Court) permit judicial compassion under Article 21 to reduce a sentence below the statutory minimum where an accused has suffered prolonged trial delay and has already undergone part of the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The revisionist should be treated leniently and the sentence reduced on three grounds: (i) he endured the agony of trial for over four years; (ii) his father died on 12.10.1997 while he was imprisoned; and (iii) upon conviction and sentencing on 10.9.1997 he had already undergone more than two and a half months of the sentence.
  • Reliance was placed on precedents, notably Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana (1989 Vol. (1) RCR 171), which itself relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Braham Dass v. State Of Himachal Pradesh ((1988) 4 SCC 130 : AIR 1988 SC 1789 : 1988 (2) RCR 184), and on Des Raj v. State of Haryana (1996 Vol. (1) RCR 689), in support of reduction of the minimum sentence in the circumstances.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments for the respondent State.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 1989 Vol. (1) RCR 171 Authority accepting reduction of six months rigorous imprisonment on grounds including prolonged trial and partial sentence already undergone; relied on Braham Dass. The Court noted and followed this Court's decision as supporting a reduction of sentence in similar circumstances and treated it as persuasive guidance for exercising compassion in revisional jurisdiction.
Braham Dass v. State Of Himachal Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 130 : AIR 1988 SC 1789 : 1988 (2) RCR 184 Principle that judicial compassion, read with Article 21's guarantee of a speedy trial, may justify reducing sentence (including below statutory minimum) where the accused has suffered protracted trial and mental agony due to delay. The Court expressly followed the Supreme Court's reasoning in Braham Dass as a settled position of law permitting consideration of reduction in sentence where trial delays and hardship are attributable to the prosecution, and applied that principle to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1996 Vol. (1) RCR 689 Cited as another authority in support of reducing minimum prescribed sentence in appropriate circumstances (as referenced by counsel and earlier decisions). Referenced by the Court as supporting the contention for reduction; formed part of the judicial authorities the Court considered when deciding to exercise compassion in reduction of sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court confined the revision to the question of quantum of sentence. It examined the revisionist's grounds of long delay in trial (over four years), the death of his father while he was imprisoned, and the fact that he had already undergone more than two and a half months of sentence. The Court considered earlier decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. It quoted and relied upon the reasoning that, notwithstanding a statutory minimum sentence, the provisions of Article 21 and its interpretation regarding the right to a speedy trial permit judicial compassion to compensate an accused for mental agony arising from protracted trial attributable to the prosecution.

Following the settled position in Braham Dass and the decision in Harbans Lal (which itself relied on Braham Dass), the Court accepted that a plea to take into account the sentence already undergone (even if less than the statutory minimum) is relevant and may justify reduction of the substantive sentence. Applying these principles to the facts narrated in the opinion, the Court found that judicial compassion warranted reducing the substantive sentence to the period already served by the revisionist. The Court preserved the conviction and maintained the fine imposed by the courts below.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision is partly allowed. The conviction of Manoj Kumar under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is maintained. The substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The fine imposed by the courts below is maintained.

Implications:

  • The direct effect is that the revisionist's substantive imprisonment sentence has been commuted to the time he has already served; the conviction and monetary penalty remain in force.
  • The Court applied existing authority (including Braham Dass and Harbans Lal) to justify exercising judicial compassion under Article 21 in circumstances of protracted trial and personal hardship. The opinion does not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond applying these cited authorities to the facts of the case.

Disposition: Revision partly allowed.

Show full summary ...

    Manoj Kumar v. State Of Haryana .

    K.K Srivastava, J.:— Heard Mr. H.S Gill, learned Senior Advocate appealing for the revisionist Manoj Kumar and Mr. Surinder Lamba learned AAG for the State of Haryana-respondent. The revisionist Manoj Kumar was tried in the court of Sh. B. Diwakar, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short to be referred as Act) in case No. 164/2 dated 18.11.1993 The charge brought against the revisionist was about the adulteration of milk of cow which was stored in about 20 bottles and was displayed for public sale. These bottles were stored in refrigerator.

    2. On facts a sample was drawn according to the rules by the Food Inspector and the same, after analysis, was found to be adulterated. A complaint was duly filed after obtaining due sanction of the relevant authority and the revisionist was put on trial on the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Learned Magistrate found the prosecution evidence sufficient to convict the revisionist of the charge punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The revisionist Manoj Kumar challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1996, which came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad on 10.9.1997 The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate had rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and further noticed that since the minimum sentence prescribed for the commission of the offence had already been awarded no cause for showing further leniency arose and in the result the appeal was dismissed.

    3. Feeling aggrieved, Manoj Kumar has now filed this revision and has challenged the correctness of the judgments of the courts below. However, when this revision came up for motion hearing on 24.10.1997, the revision was confined only with regard to the quantum of sentence. Notice was accordingly issued for the said limited purpose of sentence to the Advocate General, Haryana. Upon service of notice Mr. Surinder Lamba, learned AAG for the State of Haryana has put in appearance.

    4. Mr. H.S Gill, Sr. Advocate for revisionist contended that the revisionist deserves to be dealt with leniently on three grounds which, according to him, were adequate for allowing the sentence to be still reduced further from the minimum sentence awarded under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. These facts and circumstances, in short, were:

    (i) The revisionist Manoj Kumar faced the agony of trial for a period of more than four years,

    (ii) The revisionist lost his father on 12.10.97 when he had already been lodged in jail for serving out the sentence aforesaid, and lastly

    (iii) It was contended that upon his conviction and sentence ordered on 10.9.1997, Manoj Kumar has already undergone more than two and a half months' sentence.

    5. In support of his argument Mr. H.S Gill, Sr. Advocate placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 1989 Vol. (1) RCR 171. A learned Single Judge of this Court while accepting the plea of reduction of sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment on the grounds mentioned therein, which included the sufferance of the agony of the trial for more than four years and the revisionist having undergone sentence of one month, placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in case of Braham Dass v. State Of Himachal Pradesh., (1988) 4 SCC 130 : AIR 1988 SC 1789 : 1988 (2) RCR 184. The other authority which has been cited in support of the aforesaid contention is Des Raj v. State of Haryana, 1996 Vol. (1) RCR 689. The learned Single Judge of this Court while accepting the plea of reduction of the minimum sentence provided under Section 16 of the Act observed as under:—

    “----------Keeping a person in suspended animation for 8 years or more without any case at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. It is correct that although minimum sentence to be imposed upon a convict is prescribed by the statute yet keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role and convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial due to the fault of the prosecution by this Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.”

    6. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Braham Dass case (supra). In view of the settled position of law regarding the consideration of a plea of the revisionist to let him off for, the sentence already undergone which is of a duration of less than minimum of the sentence prescribed under Section 16 of the Act and, further in view of the facts and circumstances of this case which have already been narrated here, I find myself in complete agreement with a decision rendered by this Court and respectfully follow the decision of the apex Court rendered in case of Braham Dass (supra).

    7. Resultantly, this revision is partly accepted. While the conviction of the revisionist is maintained under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence regarding the fine, however, remain the same and is maintained.

    Revision partly allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Manoj Kumar v. State Of Haryana .
    (Nov 26, 1997)