SATYA NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit 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 dated 24.03.1994 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi holding the appellant guilty under Section 16(1) read with Section 7, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of provisions of Section 2(1)(a)(a) (j)(m) of the Act as also against the order sentencing the appellant to undergo R.1 for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months. Further 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.2000 instead of Rs.5000/-.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission only to the question of sentence. He has drawn my attention to a judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Nortam Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan [1995 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 311] where the Supreme Court while dealing with more or less a similar case was pleased to acquit the appellant of all charges. The learned counsel also draws the attention to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad vs. State of M.P. [ 1996(2) FAC 17, whereby the Supreme Court on the question of coloring material held that/although adding the same would be an offence 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 Section 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 Narotam Mal'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/-.