STATE OF U P Vs. AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge Rampur dated 20-11-1978 where by he had upheld the conviction of the respondent-Akhtar under Ss. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence from one year R.I. to imprisonment till rising of the Court and reduced the fine of Rs. 2000.00 to that of Rs. 100.00 only.

(2.) Sri Jagdish Tewari, learned A. G. A. has been heard in support of this appeal where as Sri I. H. Khan learned counsel appearing for the respondent has been heard on behalf of the accused. The entire record has been perused. Sri Tewari being conscious of the fact that the respondent-Akhtar was tried for alleged taking of sample on 18-7-1975 addressed the Court mainly on the question of sentence only as to whether in such cases learned Sessions Judge had power of reducing the sentence as noted above. He said that in case this question is decided in favour of the State on the given facts imposition of additional sentence shall not be insisted upon keeping in view that 17 years have already elapsed between taking of the sample and this date. One does not know-how the life of the respondent has gone to be settled by now. If the maximum sentence in accordance with law may have been awarded to him at the appropriate time, he must have under gone that at least 16 years ago. Asking him to be sent to jail again for no fault of his after perhaps he has reached the evening of his life, will be unreasonable as it is harsh to sacrifice substantial justice at the altar of technical justice. It was rightly, pointed out by Sri Tewari that the fine as imposed by the Magistrate should in any case be restored.

(3.) The facts of the case are that on 18-7-1975 at about 8.30 a.m. the Food Inspector Sri M. S. Som checked and found the respondent-Akhtar selling milk in village Pahari, P. S. Civil Lines, District Rampur. He collected the sample and divided it into three equal parts and sent it for Chemical examination. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was deficient by 30% in fat contents and 48% in non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction the respondent was prosecuted.