MOOL CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 by the Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further six months R.I. by the Sessions Judge, Meerut; hence this revision, which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned order. Both the Courts below, on a consideration of the evidence on record and circumstances of the case, have held that the sample of Suji, that was taken by the Food Inspector, was adulterated inasmuch as it was coloured with the prohibited coaltar dye. I do not find any illegality or error in the findings concurrently recorded by the Subordinate Courts to warrant any interference in revision on the question of facts.

(3.) The counsel for the applicant, however, argues that the accused is not a previous convict. He has submitted that in the first instance the minimum sentence provided under the law may be awarded to him. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case I hereby maintain the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but I reduce the sentence of imprisonment from one year R.I. to six months R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000.00 is maintained. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence. With this modification in sentence this revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.