STATE Vs. JAGDISH GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5th August, 2010 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge in CRL.A. 85/09 whereby upholding the conviction of the Respondent for offences punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of P.F.A Act the sentence awarded by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year was reduced to six months and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month.

(2.) Learned APP for the State contends that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts of the case. There is no dispute that the sample was found to be adulterated with the presence of synthetic Colour tartrazine. The punishment prescribed under Section 16(1A) of P.F.A. Act is for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to 6 years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 2000/-. Thus, the impugned order, reducing the sentence of the Respondent to a term less than the minimum prescribed punishment is illegal.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent contends that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly reduced the sentence of the Respondent. Learned counsel for the Respondent further contends that against the impugned order dated 5th August, 2010, the Respondent had also filed a petition being Crl. Rev. P. No. 420/2010 wherein this Court upholding the conviction further reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs. 50,000/-. Thus this Court cannot now modify the order passed by this Court in another petition.