D. Raju, J. -
(2.)The respondent has been convicted for an offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 for the violation of Section 2 (ia) (a), (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 9-5-2000 in case No.42 of 1994. Thereupon, on 12-5-2000 he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, in addition to a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo a further sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. Thereafter, the respondent went on appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, by his judgment dated 20-3-2001 in Crl. Appeal No.11 of 2000 affirmed the findings of the trial court that the offence has been properly proved on the basis of proper and sufficient material and consequently sustained the conviction. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, adverting to the claim made for the benefit of Section 433 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Appellate Judge found it not possible for him to grant relief on the view that the power to commute under the said provision vests with the State Government and it was not permissible for him to adopt the course made in 1996 (2) FAC 187 by this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers. The sentence imposed by the trial court was also, thus, confirmed.
(3.)Aggrieved, the respondent pursued the matter on revision before the High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No.188 of 2001. The conviction of the respondent was not challenged by the respondent before the High Court. So far as the sentence is concerned, adverting to the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, wherein it was found stated that the colouring matter was not injuries to health and placing reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in 2000 Crl L.J. 2777, wherein a direction was issued by this Court to the Government under Section 433 Cr. P.C., benefit of Section 433 (d) Cr. P.C. was claimed for the respondent. Taking into account the same and the concession said to have been made by the counsel for the State, the learned Judge in the High Court felt persuaded to extend the benefit of commutation of sentence, as envisaged under Section 433 (d) Cr.P.C. and directed the respondent the deposit in the trial court Rs. 20,000/- as fine, in commutation of the sentence of imprisonment and inform the Government of such deposit, for formalising the matter by passing appropriate orders under Section 433 (d) Cr. P.C. It was also ordered that on deposit of the fine amount, the sentence of imprisonment imposed shall stand suspended. Aggrieved against this order of the High Court dated 24-4-2001, this appeal has been filed by the Delhi Administration.