AMAR NATH Vs. ALFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in this case, Alfa by name, was tried separately in two cases under section 16 (l)(ai(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Against him corn. plaints were filed by a Food Inspector for selling adultrated milk One of those cases was decided by the Magistrate, First Class, Chamba, on November 7, 1967 and the respondent was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000.00. The second case was deaded on .November 13, 1967 and the sentence awarded was six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 500/ . While deciding the second case the learned Magistrate ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall iun concurrently with the sentence in the previous case which was being undergone by the convicted person

(2.) A revision was filed by the Food Inspector concerned in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kangra Shri Chet Ram the learned Sessions Judge, made a report recommenting setting aside of the order of the Magistrate by which he had directed that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. According to the learned Sessions Judge as the cases against the respondent were separate ones and v. ere decided on different dates the sentence in the case decided on a latter date could not be ordered to run concurrently with the sentence which was already being undergone in the case which was decided earlier. Butan Singh v. Emperor was relied upon in support of that view.

(3.) Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, reads as under :