MADAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is directed against the order dated 26 -4 - 83 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh dis ­missing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 20 -3 -80 passed by the Magistrate convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) DESPITE the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. After hearing the learned Counsel for the State the judg ­ment was reserved. Considering the memo of appeal and other available record, I do not find any merit in this revision warrant ­ing interference with the conviction. The fact remains that the said sample was taken on 13 -12 -75. About 25 years have elapsed. The revision is pending since 1983. Look ­ing to the circumstances of the case I find that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is al ­tered to sentence of fine.

(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.