MUSTAQIM Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mustaqim applicant was prosecuted under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegation that he was selling milk out of which sample was taken, which was found to be adulterated. The complaint for the prosecution of the applicant was tiled in court on 3rd of March, 1975. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The trial court, however, found the applicant guilty and, convicting him for the aforesaid offence, sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. Aggrieved against it he hied an appeal in the court of Sessions. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnore, who heard the appeal, dismissed it in toto vide his judgment dated 27th June, 1981. Dissatisfied with it the applicant preferred the present revision, which was admitted on the question of sentence only.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the applicant has been facing the trial for more than six years and during this period he has already met sufficient harassment and expenditure. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the applicant is not a previous convict.

(3.) From a perusal of judgment of the lower appellate court it does appear that a period of more than six years has elapsed since the prosecution was launched against the applicant. It cannot be gain-said that the applicant should have faced sufficient amount of harassment and expenditure on account of the case having remained pending for such a long period. It does not appear from the judgment of the trial court or the lower appellate court that the applicant was found guilty of having contravened any provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act earlier. Under these circumstances think a lenient view can be taken.