TULSHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted by the courts below under Sec. 7/16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to undergo further R.I. for three months.

(2.) The charge against the petitioner is that at about 6 A.M. on 27.5.1974 he was found selling milk which upon analysis by the chemical examiner, was found to be adulterated. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that the petitioner was found selling milk. The chemical examiner found the milk to be adulterated. The conviction of the petitioner is, therefore, well merited. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this petition on the question of sentence. The Assistant Government Advocate has taken notice of the revision. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place in the year 1974 i.e. before the latest amendment of the Act, in 1976. The milk which the petitioner was exposing for sale did not contain any injurious article in it. The petitioner has already faced the ordeal of a lengthy trial. He is a petty hawker. There are consequently special and adequate reasons to take a lenient view in the matter of his sentence. 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 that already undergone by him which period comprises of more than two weeks. I am further of the opinion that the fine awarded to the petitioner should be reduced to Rs. 500.00. Except for this modification in petitioner's sentence this revision is dismissed. The petitioner is given Three months' time to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 500.00 as fine. In default of payment he will have to undergo R.I. for six months. Petition dismissed.