MUNNAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-2-87 passed by Special Judge/ad ditional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dis missing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 13-9-84 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Gorakhpur convicting the revisionist for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to | undergo one year rigorous imprisonment andafineofrs. 2000/ -.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecution failed to examine the public witnesses and since the report of the Public Analyst does not contain the various details his opinion could not be accepted. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and submission of the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this argument. THE appellate Court has con sidered all the pleas in detail and no con trary view is possible. I find that the ac cused was rightly convicted.

(3.) IN view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionist is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 6000/- including the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act on account of the Dhania being adul terated and Rs. 1000/- including fine for violation of Rule 50 with the direction to the revisionist to deposit the fine imposed in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate con cerned and to apprise the State Govern ment that the amount has been deposited with a copy of receipt and copy of this, order. The revisionist on doing so need not be arrested. The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidencing deposit of fine may formalize the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.