1 2025:CGHC:24732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 665 of 2011 Ramprakash Singh, S/o Slet Markandey Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Surajpura, Police Station – Surajpura, Baliya (U.P.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate Dhamtari,(C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gajendra Ratre, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.06.2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2011 arising out of judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 194/11, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 34(2) of the C.G. Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 18:52:38 +0530 2 payment of fine additional RI for 06 months to the applicant. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist does not challenge his conviction, but submits that he is ready and willing to apply for commutation of sentence on the condition or further deposit, if any, in lieu of awarded sentence. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the sentence is proportionate to the charge established. She also submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this revision pending and it be disposed off by giving appropriate directions. 4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Jagdish Prasad, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 646 held in paras 4 and 5 thereof as under: "4. In Dayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan it was inter alia observed as follows: (SCC pp. 728-29, para 15) "15. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not inclined to modify the sentence by passing an order of the nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair where this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a sentence of fine and directed that State to exercise its powers 3 under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. In the instant case the appellant has been sentence to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant." "5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The sentence as imposed by the trial court is restored. However, since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if the respondent-accused moves the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence during which period it shall be open to him to move the appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the matter of commutation is passed by the appropriate Government the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence." 5. The position which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that 4 the allegations against the revisionist is that 21 carton box containing, in each, 48 quarters filled with 180ml of country made liquor from the vehicle in which the applicant was travelling. For offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, minimum punishment is one year and maximum sentence is three years. Learned State counsel could not point out any distinguishing feature, which would make the ratio laid in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) inapplicable on the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also expressed his willingness that the revisionist is prepared to apply for commutation of sentence under Section 433 of the Cr.P.C. and is also willing to deposit additional fine, if any coupled with the fact that revisionist have also remained in custody for about 05 months. 6. The revision is disposed off subject to the following conditions:- (i) Order of conviction is maintained; (ii) In case, the revisionist deposits Rs.10,000/- as additional fine before the trial Court within six weeks from today, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, and simultaneously he would apply before the appropriate government for commutation of his sentence; (iii) The State Government shall be obliged to consider the request for commutation of sentence in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above, within a further period of 06 months from the date of production of certified 5 copy of the order along with the request for commutation. (iv) For a period of 06 months, revisionist need not surrender to undergo remaining sentence. If no orders for commutation in favour of revisionist is passed by the appropriate government, within the aforesaid period (06 months), the revisionist would be obliged to surrender only upon refund of fine deposited by him. (v) The competent authority would strictly adhere to the time schedule and to the conditions stipulated hereinabove. (vi) However, in case of default on the part of revisionist in complying with this order, he shall forthwith surrender after six weeks to serve out his remainder sentence. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned and to the State Government for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek