BABU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing CrL.A. No. 40/99 and reducing the sentence awarded to petitioner No. 1 from 9 months' RI to six months' RI while maintaining the fine imposed on the petitioners by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act') while maintaining the fine as awarded on appellants Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sample of the Chenna was lifted on 28.10.1996 while the complaint was filed on 26.3.1997 and the report from the Central Food Laboratory was received on 8.5.1997. Consequently, the sample that was lifted lost its values and was not capable of being analysed. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that this question has been adverted to by the Courts below and found, as a matter of fact, that the sample had not deteriorated because sufficient amount of preservative had been added and, therefore, the report of the Central Food Laboratory, which does not state that the sample lifted was not fit for analysis, ought to be read as having been properly preserved. He draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Inderjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (1979) 4 SCC 246 and Om Prakash v. Delhi Administration and Another, 1976 CrI.L.J. 197, where the Court held that if sufficient strength of formalin had been added to the sample of Chenna, it could have been preserved for a much longer time. Once the Central Food Laboratory to whom the sample of Chenna was sent for re-examination found that the same was in order and could have been analysed, there being no evidence to the contrary, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inderjeet's case (supra) would apply on all fours. I, therefore, find no fault with the order of conviction and confirm the same.

(3.) However, the learned Counsel argues on the question of sentence and submits that this is a case where sample was lifted on 28.10.1986. The petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for 15 years and has also been incarcerated for about 12 days.He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from neuropsychetric problem and, therefore, would not be in a position to face the rigours of imprisonment any further and has also closed down his business, no useful purpose would be served in-requiring him to undergo remaining portion of, sentence at this belated stage.