IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3550 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.197/2002 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.5834/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ R.C.MATHEW, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND NODAL OFFICER, FOR ENFORCEMENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS, T.C.NO.14/1421, UNIVERSITY P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 34, ON BEHALF OF BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS MANAK BHAVAN, 9 BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S):APPELLANT/ACCUSED & STATE ----------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ KUMAR.S., S/O.SUNDARESAN, M/S.SCIENCE ENTERPRISES, KANNIMEL, D WARD, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3550 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is at the instance of the complainant in S.T.No.5834 of 1998 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollam. That complaint was filed by petitioner against respondent No.1 for violation of Section 11(1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”). Case is that respondent No.1, proprietor of M/s.Science Enterprises, Kannimel engaged in manufacture of distilled water of battery affixed ISI mark without obtaining licence and committed offence punishable under Section 11(1) of the Act. Offence is alleged to have been detected on 21.1.1998. 24 bottles of distilled water of battery was allegedly purchased by the petitioner which revealed violation of Section 11(1) of the Act. Learned magistrate found respondent No.1 guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- A default sentence for non-payment of compensation was also imposed. Respondent No.1 challenged conviction and sentence in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kollam while disposing of Crl.Appeal No.197 of 2002 confirmed conviction but modified sentence to fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the extent of sentence, complainant has filed this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that sentence is alarmingly low and placed reliance on the decisions in Surjit Crl.R.P.No.3550/2007 2 Singh v. Nahara Ram and another [(2004) 6 SCC 513] and Shailesh Jasvant Bhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 1 SCC (Cri.) 499]. 2. This Court in revision is concerned with the question whether interference is required with the discretionary power exercised by the appellate court. There is no case that the sentence as modified by the appellate court is illegal or irregular. What is challenged is the propriety or exercise of discretion. It is not disputed that appellate court has the discretion to modify the sentence ofcourse to be exercised judiciously. There is no case or evidence that respondent No.1 is involved in any other similar case. There is also no case that before or after, respondent No.1 has engaged in violation of Section 11(1) of the Act. Appellate court has considered relevant facts and circumstances of the case and found that a fine of Rs.5,000/- would suffice the interest of justice. 3. It is true that courts are required to award sentence considering the facts and circumstances of the case. In Surjit Singh v. Nahara Ram and another referred supra case involved offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act while in Shailesh Jasvant Bhai v. State of Gujarat referred supra case involved offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 114 of the Code. Gravity of the offences committed in the above referred cases persuaded the Supreme Court to hold that the sentence awarded was not proper. Crl.R.P.No.3550/2007 3 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and hearing learned counsel I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in learned Additional Sessions Judge modifying the sentence. No interference at the instance of petitioner is called for. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks