OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-8-85 passed by Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-5-85 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) convicting the revisionist for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as also under Section 7/16 of the Act read with Rule 50 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous im prisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 and also sentence of three months for violation of Rule 50 and to fine of Rs. 500. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecution could not produce any document to show that any licence was required for sale of linseed oil on the date of the incident. This contention appears to be correct. In my opinion, the Courts below committed il legality in convicting the revisionist for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. His conviction for violation of Rule 50 and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- are set aside.

(2.) SO far as the conviction under Sec tion 7/16 of the Act on account of the sample having been found adulteration is concerned, the finding does not suffer adulterated and the revisionist was rightly under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of the ac cusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, there fore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment.