SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 45/99 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the order dt. 24.3.1994 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi holding the appellant guilty under Sec. 16(1) read with Section 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of provisions of Sec. 2(l)(a)(a)(j)(m) of the Act as also against the order sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,(XXV- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I; for six months. Fur- ther on appeal while upholding the order of conviction the learned Appellate Court modified the sentence for one year S.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 instead of Rs. 5,000.00

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only to the question of sentence. He has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Norton Mal v. Stale of Rajasthan, 1995 (3) RCR 311, where the Supreme Court while dealing with more or less a similar case was pleased to acquit the appellant of all char- ges. The learned Counsel also draws my attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State ofM.P., 1996 (2) FAC 187, whereby the Supreme Court on the question of colouring material held that although adding the same would be an of- fence under the Act, the sentence under the same was reduced from six months to three months simple imprisonment with a recommendation that the State Government should take action under Sub-clause (d) of Sec. 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) In the present case, I find that the cases are more or less similar to the judgment in Norton Mat's case. However, I deem it fit to deal with this case with reference to Badri Prasad's case and, therefore, reduce the sentence of one year to six months simple imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs. 20,000.00.