MURLI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was prosecuted for the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo 'rigorous imprisonment' for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that the milk which was taken from the applicant on being sent to the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated. The applicant pleaded not guilty and further that he was not selling buffalo milk and that he was selling cow's milk. The trial court as well as the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case on the evidence given by it and found that the applicant was selling buffalo's milk which was below the standard prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On that finding the trial court had awarded six months rigorous imprisonment and had imposed a fine of Rs. 1000.00. But in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to 3 months R.I. and the fine to a sum of Rs. 500.00. Aggrieved by these judgments the applicant has filed the present revision.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am unable to find out any error of law which might have been committed by the two courts below in convicting the applicant. I find that the conviction of the applicant is based on the appreciation of the evidence given by the prosecution. The report of the Public Analyst fully establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the milk which was being carried by the applicant was mixed with water and that it did not contain the requisite fatty and non-fatty solids. The finding is one of fact. However, considering the fact that this was the first offence which was committed by the applicant and his conviction might work as a deterrent to him for repeating the offence in future, it is in the interest of justice that his sentence be reduced from the period awarded to the period already undergone. I am told that the fine which was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge has already been paid by him.