BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo 1 years R.I. In appeal his conviction and sentence have been maintained by the Session Judge, Aligarh. Hence this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision on the question of sentence only. It appears that a sample of Aniseed was purchased by the Food Inspector in accordance with law, which on analysis was found to be adulterated. It contained foreign matter which exceeded the permissible limit of 5 per cent.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident in question took place about 5 years ago, prior to the amendment Act No. 34 of 1976. He has argued that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. He has further stated that if the fine imposed upon the applicant is increased, he will not consider it as an enhancement of sentence. He has further brought to my notice that the applicant has been in jail for about 3 weeks already. Having regard to all the circumstances, he has prayed for reduction of sentence. Having considered all the evidence of the accused, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the applicant must be maintained for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant has been fined a sum of Rs. 1000.00 by the trial court. I further direct that he will pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 more within 3 months from today. In the event of default in payment of this enhanced fine, he shall suffer 3 months R.I.