GORDHANBHAI BHURABHAI Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR DINEARAY VAJESHANKER MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by original accused Gordhanbhai Bhurabhai against the judgment and order dated 12. 6. 1981 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal in Criminal Case No. 314 of 1979 by which the learned Magistrate has held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The said judgment and order is challenged by the State of Gujarat by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 537 of 1981 before this Court on the basis of the suo motu notice issued and this Court (Coram: N. N. Mathur, J. , as he then was), and passed the following order was passed on 7. 5. 1997: this case has been registered on a Suo Motu notice. The accused-respondent by order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondal, dated 12th June, 1981, has been convicted for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, he has been ordered only to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The judgment is apparently contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The minimum sentence provided is six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. For the reasons recorded in the section, a discretion is vested in the Court to reduce the same, but the limit provided is of three months. However, considering the fact that the incident is of 12th February, 1979, I am not inclined to interfere with the order, after almost 18 years. In view of this, Rule is discharged.

(2.) THIS Court has also gone through the findings arrived at by the learned JMFC Court and finds that the trial Court has rightly passed the order holding the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and has not committed any error and has rightly come to the conclusion in passing the order. Taking into consideration the sentence awarded by the learned JMFC, in the opinion of this Court, no interference is required considering the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7. 5. 1997 passed by this Court (Coram: N. N. Mathur, J. , as he then was ). Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.