Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SATYA NARAYAN AGARWAL versus STATE OF ASSAM

Decided
26 April 2007
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 669 · 2007 INSC 469
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 670, margin D

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the revision by the appellant.

p. 670, margin D

3

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

p. 670, margin E

4

The appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (in short the 'Act') by the trial Court. First Appellate Court appeal. The revision, as noted above, was dismissed by the

p. 670, margin E

5

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 20.5.1987 the Food Inspector collected sample of chilli powder the shop of the appellant. The sample was sent for analysis laboratory and on such analysis it was found to be adulterated. was tried. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and Rs.1,000/-. 'I

pp. 670–671, margin F

6

An appeal preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, A ~'which was dismissed. As noted above, the revision before the learned Single Judge was also dismissed.

p. 671

7

Learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the submissions made before the courts below and submitted that it is a case of misbranding and,. therefore, it is not a case where minimum sentence is to be imposed. The High B Court did not accept the contention. It was of the view that it is not a case of misbranding. Additionally, it was submitted that the High Court should have directed release of the appellant on probation, or instead of custodial sentence, sentence of fine could have been imposed.

p. 671

8

Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported c the judgment. It is to be noted that the High Court found that there was no scope for interference. However, it enhanced the fme to Rs.5,000/- and permitted the appellant to move the State Government under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').

p. 671

9

In N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, [1997] 9 SCC ~ 101 this Court observed as follows: "The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fme. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs.6000 as fme in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six F weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fme has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause ( d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

p. 671

10

In Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation and Anr., [2000] 9 SCC 151, similar view was expressed in the following terms: "We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum ofRs.10,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of6 months' imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On_ deposit of the fine the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate order under clause ( d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail."

pp. 671–672

11

It is to be noted that in both the cases there was no direction to formalize the sentence. On the other hand it was clearly noted that the State Government may formalize the sentence. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that an application in terms of Section 433 of the Code was made which has been rejected.

p. 672, margin B

12

We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant, may, if so advised, challenge the order stated to have been passed by the State Government under Section 433 of the Code. S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. ' . .

p. 672, margin C