(1.) The question that arise for consideration in this criminal revision petition is whether, the High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below in a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', could postpone the execution of the sentence, till such time as the revision petitioner, accused, moves the appropriate Government under S.432 or 433 Cr.P.C., for remission or commutation of the sentence or order the Government to commute the sentence.
(2.) The revision petitioner, V. Suresh, the first accused in S.T. 861 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Neyyattinkara, was found guilty under S.16(i)(a)(i), read with S.7(i) and (iii) and S.2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in short 'the Act', and under R.5, read with Appendix B, item A.05.09, as well as R.50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in short the Rules. He was, therefore, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The challenge of the same before the II Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, through Crl. Appeal 302 of 1998, was not successful. Hence, he came up before this Court, preferring this revision.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 15-7-1995, at about 3.30 p.m., PW 1, Sudarsanan, the Food Inspector, visited the shop of the revision petitioner. After complying with the procedure, PW 1 purchased 450 grams of cumin, on paying an amount of Rs. 22 to the revision petitioner as its cost. He also sampled out the same as per the procedure. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample did not conform to the standard prescribed for cumin and was, therefore, adulterated. The revision petitioner was the salesman and the 2nd accused was the dealer. It was thereafter, the complaint was preferred before the court below.