THUNDIKOTH NUCHILTHODI KUMARAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thalassery delivered in Crl. Appeal No. 46 of 1992. That appeal had arisen against the conviction rendered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C. C. No. 71 of 1989.

(2.) The facts as borne out from the records are briefly as follows: The revision petitioner (first accused) was the salesman of Munderi Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., in which accused Nos. 2 to 4 were the Secretary, President and the society itself. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were acquitted by the Trial Court itself. On 19-6-1989, PW. 1, the Food Inspector, inspected the society and purchased cow milk. On following the formalities as laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Chemical Analyst for examination and report. On receipt of the report, marked as Ext. P11, it was found by PW. 1 that the milk fat contained was at 5% and milk solids not fat was at 7.8%. But the standard as prescribed in the Act is 3.5%. However, challenging Ext. P11, yet another part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for examination and report. That report, Ext. P33, would indicate that the milk solids not fat contained 7.8%, for which the complaint was filed. The Magistrate on assessing the evidence found the revision petitioner (first accused) guilty under S.16(1)(a)(i), 2(ia)(m), read with S.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default in the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. That conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge. However, he reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Ravi Shankar, appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and however, the sentence of imprisonment of three months imposed by the Sessions Court can be set aside on the basis of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions taking into account of the long pendency of the criminal prosecution from the year 1989. No doubt, S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that for similar offence, the minimum sentence shall not be less than six months and the fine, not less than Rs. 1,000/-. But, however, on account of adequate and special reasons, the minimum sentence cannot be less than three months and the fine shall not be less than Rs. 500/-. According to Mr. Ravishankar, even the minimum sentence of three months can be set aside as per the principle laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed out above.