AVINASH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition is taken on board today. The date of 21st November, 2000 fixed in the matter is cancelled.

(2.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 170/88 dated 26.9.2000 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of conviction of the petitioner under Section 7 / 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also has upheld the sentence of six months RI with fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for two months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction but is confining his arguments to the question of sentence. He submits that out of six months, the petitioner has already undergone one month of imprisonment and that the Supreme Court in similar cases held as under :

(3.) In this case also I find that the article of milk on analysis was found to contain no foreign substance or in any manner injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that the milk solids not fat fell below the standards very marginally. This case, therefore, seems to be based on parallel facts enumerated in the case decided by the Supreme Court. I, therefore, direct that the petitioner deposits a total sum of Rs. 10.000.00 as fine in commutation of sentence of six months imprisonment within a period of two weeks from today and intimate the same to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under Clause (d) of Section 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code.