VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on two counts. In appeal his conviction on one count viz. Sec. 7 (3) read with Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was set aside. On the second count viz. Sec. 7 (1) read with Rule 28, his conviction was upheld. The sentence awarded by the trial court and maintained by the appellate court is 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000.00. Hence this revision.

(2.) have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the impugned orders. Learned counsel has argued that there has not been sufficient compliance with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. am unable to accept this suggestion, because it is amply proved that the intimation was despatched along with the report of the Public Analyst to the applicant vide statement of Sri Shyam Lal Kaushik on oath. The clerk concerned has stated that the despatch was effected on 21-5-80 by registered post. The postal receipt is also on the record. The memo of intimation is Ex. Ka 9. In these circumstances am fully satisfied that there has been full compliance of the law and Sec. 13 (2) of the Act has not been infringed.

(3.) On the question of sentence, however, am inclined to give some relief to the applicant. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. In these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the applicant for the offence in question is reduced to 6 months' RJ. The fine of Rs. 2000.00 is also reduced to Rs. 1000.00. In the event of default in payment of fine, the applicant shall undergo two months' further R.I.