RAHIMUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 31st May, 1982 by which the conviction of accused Rahimuddin has been upheld but the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 2000 under Section 7/16, P. F. A. Act has been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000. 2 The brief facts of the case are that on 11th September, 1979 Food Inspector, Jyoti Prakash found the accused Rahimuddin carrying milk for sale and obtained a sample from him after observing all the necessary formalities. It was found that Rahimuddin is a servant of Ghayasuddin and, therefore, after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, Rahimuddin and Ghayasuddin both were prosecuted. Ghayasuddin denied that Rahimuddin was his servant. After the trial, the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused. Ghayasuddin was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in a separate appeal. The conviction of Rahimuddin was upheld and, as stated earlier, his sentence was reduced. Being aggrieved against the ap pellate judgment dated 31st May, 1982, the present revision has been filed. 3. I have heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the revisionist and A. G. A. for the State and have gone through the record. 4. The only contention which has been advanced on behalf of the revisionist is that he was merely the servant of Ghayasuddin and was not aware of the nature of the article which he was carrying and, therefore, he is not liable. 5. THIS contention cannot be ac cepted as correct. The sample was pur chased by the Food Inspector from Rahimuddin and, therefore, the sale of the article was made by Rahimuddin. He cannot escape his liability on the ground that he was merely a servant of Ghayasuddin. 6. The Court below has rightly placed reliance on Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1966 SC 128, in which it has been held that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act gives a special definition of "sale" and in cludes within its ambit a sale for analysis. The facts in the case of Mangaldas Raghav ji (supra) were as under: "the admitted facts are these. Mangaldas is a wholesale dealer, commission agent, ex porter, supplier and manufacturer of various kinds of spices doing business at Bombay. Daryanomal is engaged in grocery business at Nasik while Kodumal is his servant. On Novem ber 7,1960 Daryanomal purchased from Man galdas a bag of hahdi (turmeric powder) weigh ing 75 Kg. which was despatched by the latter through a public carrier. It was received on behalf of Daryanomal at 11. 45 a. m. on November 18, 1960 by Kodumal at the octroi post of Nasik Municipality. After he paid the octroi duty to the Nasik Municipality and took delivery of the bag the Food Inspector Burud purchased from him 12 oz. of turmeric powder contained in that bag for the purpose of analysis". In the above case Kodumal was a mere servant who received the goods on behalf of Daryanomal and yet Kodumal was also convicted because the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from Kodumal and the price was paid to Kodumal. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel that a servant cannot be convicted under these circumstances. 7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has cited Des Raj v. The State of Haryana, 1996 Cr LJ 2720, in support of the contention that the offence having taken place about 17 years back, the sen tence should be reduced to that which the accused has already undergone. In the in stant case the judgment of the Sessions Judge was pronounced on 31st of May, 1982 and the revisionist was released on bail by order of this Court dated 7th June, 1982. Thus, it appears that he did not un dergo even fifteen days of imprisonment. Therefore, it is not fit case in which the accused should be released on sentence already undergone. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribes a minimum sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and, therefore, there is no scope for reduction of sentence. 8. In view of the above discussion, the revision is dismissed. The accused is directed to surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, tailing which steps will be taken for his arrest. Revision dismissed. .