Crl. Revn. Petn. No. 471 of 2006. Case: V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala and Anr.. Kerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court

Case NumberCrl. Revn. Petn. No. 471 of 2006
CounselFor Petitioner: M. Balagovindan and M. R. Sasith, Advs. and For Respondents: Public Prosecutor, Smt. Deepthi.
JudgesJ. M. James, J.
IssueCriminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 433, 397
Judgement DateMay 24, 2006
CourtKerala CEGAT & CESTAT High Court


  1. The question that arises for consideration in this criminal revision petition is whether, the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', could postpone the execution of the sentence, till such time as the revision petitioner, accused, moves the appropriate Government under Section 432 or 433 Cr. P. C., for remission or commutation of the sentence or order the Government to commute the sentence.

  2. The revision petitioner, V. Suresh, the first accused in S. T. 861 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara, was found guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i), read with Section 7(i) and (iii) and Section 2(ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', and under Rule 5, read with Appendix B, item A. 05.09, as well as Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in short the Rules. He was, therefore, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The challenge of the same before the II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, through Crl. Appeal 302 of 1998, was not successful. Hence, he came up before this Court, preferring this revision.

  3. The brief facts of the case are that on 15-7-1995, at about 3.30 p. m., PW. 1, Sudarsanan, the Food Inspector, visited the shop of the revision petitioner. After complying with the procedure, PW. 1 purchased 450 grams of cumin, on paying an amount of Rs. 22/- to the revision petitioner as its cost. He also sampled out the same as per the procedure. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin and was, therefore, adulterated. The revision petitioner was the salesman and the 2nd accused was the dealer. It was thereafter, the complaint was preferred before the Court below.

  4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued the facts that had been urged and considered by the trial Court, as well as the appellate Court. On re-appreciation of the same, I find that both the Courts below had legally appreciated the evidence on record and found that the revision petitioner had committed the offence as alleged against him. Hence, I sustain the conviction.

  5. Section 16 of the Act...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT