LAWS(ALL)-1977-8-65

KAMTA Vs. STATE

Decided On August 23, 1977
KAMTA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kamta petitioner has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by a Magistrate of the 1st class in the district of Varanasi. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo three months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. for three months. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed in its entirety. He has now come up with this revision.

(2.) The revision has been pressed only on the question of sentence. The petitioner is a petty shop-keeper. He has no previous conviction to his credit. The occurrence took place in the year 1970. The petitioner has already faced the ordeal of a lengthy trial. He has remained in jail for a few weeks both as a convict as well as an under-trial. The latest amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the question of sentence was not on the statute book when the occurrence took place. Considering all the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that there are adequate and compelling reasons to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the courts below. In my opinion ends of justice would adequately meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to the imprisonment awarded to him by the courts below to that already period already undergone by him and the sentence of Rs. 500.00 as fine is maintained.

(3.) This revision is consequently partly allowed and partly dismissed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is maintained but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the courts below is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of Rs. 500.00 as fine is maintained. The petitioner is given three month's time to pay the fine, if not already paid, otherwise he will have to undergo R.I. for three months. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Petition partly allowed.