SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 22 -4 -1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banda in criminal appeal No. 40 of 1985 whereby dismissing the appeal.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that on 5 -6 -1983 the Chief Food Inspector visited the business premises of revisionist for inspection as he suspected adulteration in edible items. The revisionist created obstruction in the inspection work by calling other persons of the locality and did not allow him to take the sample of edible items. The revisionist was tried for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (c) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - by the judgment and order dated 27 -3 -1985 passed by the Munsif Magistrate VIIth Finance Commission, Banda in Criminal Case No. 624 of 1983. He lost the appeal preferred against the said judgment and order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for revisionist argued that revisionist was not the owner of business premises. The compliance of Sections 10 (7), 11(1), 20 (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not made. There are no independent witnesses. The learned Counsel addressing the Court on the question of sentence argued that the incident took place in June, 1983 and order of conviction and sentence was passed on 27 -3 -1985 and confirmed by the Appellate Court on 22 -4 -1985. According to the learned Counsel more then 21 years having elapsed since after the passing of the order of conviction it is a appropriate case for commutation of sentence. He relied on the decisions in the cases of Maqbool Ahmad v. State of U.P., 1999 (39) ACC 758; Tek Chand v. State of U.P., 2002 (45) ACC 866 and N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101, in support of his contention.