NATHE SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Agra. Hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. It appears that a sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant, which on analysis was found to be deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of 26 per cent. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. Both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case fully established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in their findings.

(3.) On the question of sentence, however, learned counsel has submitted that the offence in question had taken place prior to the amendment Act, 1976. He has also submitted that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is previous convict. He has further argued that the deficiency in the instant case is only in non-fatty solids. On this basis, he submits that this court may take a lenient view on the question of sentence. Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances, I hereby uphold the conviction of the applicant for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I also uphold the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 awarded by the courts below. But so far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is reduced from 6 months to four months' R.l.