Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Raj Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1541 OF 2019)
The Supreme in a judgement upon an adulteration case , provided clarity upon the scope and mandate of Article 142. Article 142 of the Constitution Article 142 of the Constiyution empowers judical review upon the Supreme Court and this includes the power to reduce the term of sentence given by lower Court.
The appellant in the present case prayed commutation of a sentence to less than the punishment prescribed by law. The appellant contested his sentencig under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and that the cause of action arose almost 20 years ago and was not properly inquired . The appellant also asserted the adulteration in the present case was marginal in nature and sought relief under Section 433 of CRPC for remmission of sentence.
ON APPLICABLITY OF SECTION 433 OF CRPC
A bare perusal of Section 433 of Cr.PC shows that the powers under Section 433 can only be exercised by the appropriate Government. These powers cannot be exercised by any court including this Court. At best, the court can recommend to the State Government that such power may be exercised but the power of the appropriate Government cannot be usurped by the courts
Thus the Court asserted that the Court cannot judically usurpe the power of State Governments.
ON SCOPE AND MANDATE OF ARTICLE 142
"We are clearly of the view that the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised against the specific provision of law. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act lays down a minimum sentence of six months. Considering the bane of adulteration and the deleterious effect of adulteration and substandard food on the health of the citizens (especially children when milk is involved), the Legislature provided a minimum sentence of six months. Passage of time can be no excuse to award a sentence lower than the minimum. Furthermore, the power under Article 142, in our considered view, cannot be used in total violation of the law. When a minimum sentence is prescribed by law, this Court cannot, in exercise of its power under Article 142, pass an order totally contrary to law. "
Thus the Court was of the view that when clear legislative mandate is present in regard to a offence , it is beyond the power to Court to reduce it as even though the present case is only about adulteration , it will set a bad precednt for other heinous crimes like murder, and rape
The Court dismissed the appeal.
86540
103860
630
114
59824