KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision directed against the order dated 1.5.84 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.10.83 passed by Magistrate convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1000/under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and three months rigorous imprisonment and to fine of Rs. 500/under Sec. 7(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) Despite the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing learned Counsel for the State the judgment was reserved. Considering the memo of appeal and other available record, I do not find any merit in this revision warranting interference with the conviction. The fact re- mains that the said sample was taken on 26.7.80. About 20 years have passed. The revision is pending since 1984. Looking to the circumstances of the case I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of riogours imprisonment is altered to sentence of fine.

(3.) In view of the Supreme Court decision in Badri Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1996 SCC (Criminal) 79 followed by this Bench in Criminal, Revision No. 2100 of 1984 Sohan Singh alias Swarn Singh Vs. State of U.P. I modify the sentence awarded as under: