LAWS(DLH)-1975-9-28

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. STATE

Decided On September 09, 1975
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Singh was found carrying two cans of cow's milk near Government quarters, Dev Nagar, Delhi, on Aug. 10, 1973. The Food Inspector took a sample of milk for analysis. The Public Analyst found the milk fat to be 4.5%, whereas milk solids not fat were found to be 6.86%. The sample was declared adulterated due to 1.41 deficiency in milk solids not fat per cent which is equivalent to 17.3% deficiency in milk solids not fat (% added water) read with Government of India's letter No. F-14111/71 PH, dated 2.5.1972 Jai Singh had no licence for selling milk.

(2.) Mr S.N. Kapur, Metropolitan Magistrate, who tried the complaint filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, found Jai Singh guilty and convicted him. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 for selling adulterated milk and to six months, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00for selling milk without a licence. His appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation, when Jai Singh moved this Court in revision. I found that the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal and in refusing to condone the delay. However, I felt that the sentence appeared to be too severe and so I decided to issue a notice suo-motu to the State on the question of sentence.

(3.) Mr Charanjit Talwar, learned counsel for the State, has drawn my attention to my order and submits that once I had dismissed the revision filed by Jai Singh I had become functus-officjo and so could not issue a notice suo-motu. It will be noticed that the order dismissing the revision filed by Jai Singh and issuing notice suo-rnotu is a composite one. The purpose was to decide the question of sentence irrespective of the fact that the revision filed by Jai Singh was not fit to be entertained because the appellate Court's order dismissing the appeal was found to be justified. To that extent my previous order stands clarified.