RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of the District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur dated 7-10-1983 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 20-4-1983 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur in case No. 3433 of 1981. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the applicant under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adul teration Act and sentenced him to six months' R. I. and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Both the judgments have been challenged in this Revision.

(2.) SRI Radhey Shyam, appearing for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was not a vendor. Accordingly the milk was not for the purpose of sale or exposed for sale. So the prosecution is not maintainable. He has also submitted that there is no independent witness' in this case and in view of the decision reported in 1983 AWC 92 the evidence of the public witnesses cannot be relied on.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has referred the case of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Guru Prasad, 1982 ALJ 149, there it was held that when the milk was deficient of non-fatty solids and not in milk fat and the incident took place six years ago, the ends of justice would meet if the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ -. The learned counsel has submitted that the incident took place in the year 1981 and there was variation of non-fatty solds only, so this case is covered by the said decision and the benefit should go to the accused-revisionist. After going through the said decision I find that the leniency showed to the accused in that case will not be avail able to the revisionist as the date of the occurrence of the said case was on 26-1 i-1975. Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been amended after the said date, w. e. f. 1-4-1976 to the extent that penalty should be an imprisonment for a term which would not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and the fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1000/- (Rs. one thousand ). The date of the occurrence of this case is dated 25-8-1981, so after the said amendment the principle of the citation cannot be founded. Accordingly, if the conviction is sustained there is, no way left open to a Court but to impose the minimum sen tence provided under the Act.