Decided on April 28,1997



M.SRINIVASAN, C.J. - (1.)THE Courts below have concurrently held that the accused is guilty of adulteration under the provisons of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On a perusal of record, I find that there is no material to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the Court below.
(2.)HOWEVER , the contention is raised in this revision petition that there was a clear illegality on the part of the trial court in passing its judgment of conviction and also awarding sentence on the same day. According to learned counsel, some time lapse should have been there between the date of conviction and the date of awarding sentence. The contention is that after passing a judgment of conviction, the trial Court should adjourn the matter for a few days so that the accused would get an opportunity to place on record such evidence, as may be necessary for deciding the quantum of punishment.
(3.)IN support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 1978 Cri.LJ. 1824 and Anguswamy and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 (2) J.T. (SC) 184. Neither of the cases helps the petitioner in this contention. The Supreme Court has only pointed out that the requirement under Section 235(2) of hearing the accused on the question of punishment is not a mere formality and it should be complied with by the Courts. Apart from that the Supreme Court has not held anywhere that there should be a time gap between the date of conviction and the date of sentence.
The Supreme Court had another occasion to consider Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Jumman Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 S.C. 345 : [1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 364 (SC). The contention was raised in that case for the first time in the course of arguments before the Supreme Court. It was not raised in the High Court or at any stage prior to the stage of arguments before the Supreme Court. The Court said that in the absence of the point having been raised earlier, it could not be allowed. While doing so, the Court observed as follows : - "In addition to that Mr. Dalveer Bhandari stated that the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner nor any prejudice to the petitioner by such a course has been shown now to this Court and hence this argument cannot be countenanced. Having regard to the facts that this plea is raised only for the first time and that the trial Court in fact has heard the petitioner on the question of sentence but of course on the same day, we hold that this submission made on behalf of the petitioner does not merit consideration."

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.