9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction u/s 16 read with Section 7 for violation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Commutation of sentence u/s 433 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The respondent was convicted for violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine. The Appellate Judge affirmed the conviction but found it not possible to grant relief under Section 433 (d) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court, considering the certificate from the Central Food Laboratory and a previous court direction, extended the benefit of commutation of sentence to the respondent, ordering a fine deposit of Rs. 20,000 for suspension of the imprisonment sentence. The Delhi Administration appealed against this decision, arguing that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering commutation without error in the imposed sentence. The respondent's counsel argued that since the adulteration was not harmful, the High Court's decision was justified, citing previous court cases and the respondent's compliance with the fine deposit. The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering commutation of the sentence under Section 433 of the Cr.P.C., which is the prerogative of the appropriate Government. The Court emphasized that the power to commute a sentence should be exercised by the Government in accordance with established principles and not at its own discretion. The Court clarified that the High Court's order directing commutation and fine deposit was not legally sustainable and set it aside. However, the Court acknowledged that the misunderstanding may have arisen due to previous judgments and allowed the benefit already given to the accused in this case. The Court advised the Government to grant relief to the accused if deemed appropriate, or seek modification of orders through the legal process. The appeal was allowed to clarify the legal position and provide further directions.
|
