The Supreme Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 142 to pass an order totally contrary to law, a Division Bench held in a judgment delivered on Friday..This observation was made in a case where the appellant had prayed for commutation of a sentence to less than the punishment prescribed by law. This prayer was sought in a food adulteration case on the grounds that the cause of action in the case took place twenty years ago..Rejecting this prayer, the Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said that Article 142 cannot be exercised in a way to “make a mockery of the law”..“…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. If such power could be used in a food adulteration case to impose a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed, then even in cases of murder and rape, this Court applying the same principles could impose a sentence less than the minimum. .This, in our opinion, is not the purpose of Article 142. We have no doubt in our mind that powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised in such a manner that they make a mockery of the law itself.”.The appellant had also sought for the Court to pass orders under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with remission of a sentence. The judgment, however, notes that the courts do not have the jurisdiction to commute sentences under Section 433. The jurisdiction for remission cannot be usurped by the courts from the appropriate state governments, the Court noted..Rejecting the plea to pass orders under Section 433 of the CrPC, the Court held,.“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 and the Government cannot be directed to pass ‘formal compliance order’. We are, therefore, not inclined to pass a similar order because that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. “.In the instant case, the accused was convicted by the trial court in a case relating to food adulteration. This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and thereafter by the High Court..A sample of milk was collected from the accused by the Food Inspector and upon inspection, it was found that the proportion of Milk Solid Non-fat (MSNF) in the sample was 7.7% as against the prescribed standard of 8.5%..In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the marginal difference in the contents from the prescribed standards should be overlooked since there was a delay in conducting the inspection of the sample. The Court, however, found that this contention did not have any evidence to back it..Another contention raised was that the appellant was not given the opportunity to send a second sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL,) as is provided for under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant also raised the contention that he is illiterate and cannot sign his name, though his signatures were obtained by the food inspectors..Rejecting the claims, the Court said that once standards under a legislation have been laid down and prescribed, they have to be followed. As regards what is adulterated and not, the Court said that the basis of determining the same is not whether a food article is unfit for consumption, but whether the prescribed standards have been followed or not. The judgment adds, even a marginal deviation from prescribed standards cannot be ignored..The Court thus dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court cannot exercise its powers under Article 142 to pass an order totally contrary to law, a Division Bench held in a judgment delivered on Friday..This observation was made in a case where the appellant had prayed for commutation of a sentence to less than the punishment prescribed by law. This prayer was sought in a food adulteration case on the grounds that the cause of action in the case took place twenty years ago..Rejecting this prayer, the Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said that Article 142 cannot be exercised in a way to “make a mockery of the law”..“…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. If such power could be used in a food adulteration case to impose a sentence lower than the minimum prescribed, then even in cases of murder and rape, this Court applying the same principles could impose a sentence less than the minimum. .This, in our opinion, is not the purpose of Article 142. We have no doubt in our mind that powers under Article 142 cannot be exercised in such a manner that they make a mockery of the law itself.”.The appellant had also sought for the Court to pass orders under Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with remission of a sentence. The judgment, however, notes that the courts do not have the jurisdiction to commute sentences under Section 433. The jurisdiction for remission cannot be usurped by the courts from the appropriate state governments, the Court noted..Rejecting the plea to pass orders under Section 433 of the CrPC, the Court held,.“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 and the Government cannot be directed to pass ‘formal compliance order’. We are, therefore, not inclined to pass a similar order because that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. “.In the instant case, the accused was convicted by the trial court in a case relating to food adulteration. This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and thereafter by the High Court..A sample of milk was collected from the accused by the Food Inspector and upon inspection, it was found that the proportion of Milk Solid Non-fat (MSNF) in the sample was 7.7% as against the prescribed standard of 8.5%..In the appeal before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the marginal difference in the contents from the prescribed standards should be overlooked since there was a delay in conducting the inspection of the sample. The Court, however, found that this contention did not have any evidence to back it..Another contention raised was that the appellant was not given the opportunity to send a second sample to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL,) as is provided for under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant also raised the contention that he is illiterate and cannot sign his name, though his signatures were obtained by the food inspectors..Rejecting the claims, the Court said that once standards under a legislation have been laid down and prescribed, they have to be followed. As regards what is adulterated and not, the Court said that the basis of determining the same is not whether a food article is unfit for consumption, but whether the prescribed standards have been followed or not. The judgment adds, even a marginal deviation from prescribed standards cannot be ignored..The Court thus dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]
