SUMER CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.L, and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.

(2.) On the last occasion, two contentions were raised by the applicant's counsel. One of his contentions was rejected by me and the other was referred to a larger bench vide my order dated 6th Sept., 1979. The bench has now returned a finding that Rule 9(j) framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is directory and not mandatory.

(3.) Today, learned counsel for the applicants has argued the revision only on the question of sentence. He submits that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. He has also submitted that the incident had taken place in the year .1974 about 6 years back. He has further brought to my notice the fact that the adulteration in the instant case was not very heavy viz. 13 per cent fat contents and 26 per cent in non-fatty solids. The incident took place prior to the amendment Act 34 of 1976. The adulteration of milk is becoming the order of the day and as such it can not be treated very lightly. However I am of the opinion that it would serve the cause of justice to maintain the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the P.F. Act, but to reduce the period of imprisonment from 6 months' R.I. to 3 months' R.L The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 is maintained.