TULA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to one and half years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00 by the trial Court. In appeal his conviction has been maintained by the Sessions Judge, but the sentence imposed upon him has been reduced to 6 months' R.I., and a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo's milk from the applicant in accordance with the provisions of law. One of the sample phial was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that it was deficient in fat by 20% and con-fatty solids by 18%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below after consideration of the evidence on record and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused-applicant has been fully established. Learned counsel for the applicant has attempted to assail these findings of facts but I do not feel justified in interfering with these findings of fact. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders by the courts below to warrant interference in revision.

(3.) It has also been urged by the learned counsel that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is excessive. Since the offence in question has taken place on 3rd Aug., 1979, at 11-20 a.m. that is after the enforcement of the Act No. 34 of 1976, it is not possible for me to reduce the sentence any further less than the minimum which has already been awarded to the applicant.