PATOLI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Agra. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. So far as the merits of the case are concerned. I do not find any cause for interference. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the incident in question has taken place on 11.12.75 that is prior to the enforcement of Amendment Act 34 of 1976. He has also argued that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. He has further submitted that if the sample in question has been judged from the standard of cow milk, the percentage of adulteration would have been very small. It appears that the milk in question has been judged from the standard of buffalo milk. Of Course that was rightly done in the circumstances of the case but having regard to all the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the cause of justice would be served by maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act and by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 is maintained. In the event of default in the payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The applicant is in jail. He shall continue to remain in jail to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court.

(3.) With this reduction in the sentence, this revision application is dismissed. Revision dismissed.