IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1229 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.217/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.179/1989 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ P.K. BALACHANDRAN MENON, PARAYIL VEEDU, MARIYAPPALLI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P. RAVEENDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/6/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRLM.P.NO.5908 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1229 OF2001: CLOSED 23/6/2009 SD/- R. BASANT, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1229 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Sec.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and allied sections. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.N.A. Muraleedharan only submits that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. The petitioner is a 72 year old person and has been enduring the trauma of this prosecution for the past about two decades, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions in Food Inspector v. Sankaran (1990 (2) KLT 79); Joy V. Thottan v. The Food Crl.R.P. No.1229 of 2001 -: 2 :- Inspector (2008 (1) FAC 5) and Mohanan v. Food Inspector (order dated 19/10/06 in Cr.R.P.No.819 of 98) to press his contention and point out that a sentence less than the statutory minimum has been imposed by the courts earlier. 3. There is no dispute on the proposition that in accordance with law such a sentence less than what is imposed by the courts below cannot be imposed by this Court. The legislature in its wisdom has prescribed the mandatory minimum sentence and I find no elbow-room for this Court to impose any sentence less than the statutory minimum. Notwithstanding the decisions cited, I am not persuaded to agree that such course can be followed by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his option to move the Government to commute the sentence may not be affected or fettered by the dismissal of this revision petition. Needless to say, the dismissal of this revision petition will not affect the powers of the executive to act in accordance with law. 5. With the above observations, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy/ Crl.R.P. No.1229 of 2001 -: 3 :- R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1229 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 ORDER