OM PRAKASH ALIAS PREM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th August, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing Crl.A.No.1/2002 arising out of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate in two criminal complaint cases No. 8/93 and 80/93 held the petitioner guilty for an offence under Section 7/16 provisions of Food Adulteration Act and further vide separate order sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and a fine of Rs.3000/- in each of the two cases but directed both substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and the judgment under challenge. Learned counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, therefore, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already undergone around seven months actual incarceration. He submits that the occurrence is of 1992 and the petitioner has already suffered the ordeal of trial for twelve years. He further submits that the petitioner is an old man of 60 years and that no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to that already undergone. I order accordingly.