SRI KANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, and sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh vide his order dated 31st July 1978. Hence this revision which was admitted on the question of sentence only.

(2.) A sample of mustered oil was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant on 10th Dec., 75. The report of Public Analyst disclosed that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it had been mixed with Linseed oil. A mixture of two edible oils is also adulteration under Rule 44(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case proved. 1 do not find any error in their findings The applicant's counsel has urged that the accused had been in jail for about 3 months and 3 weeks already. It is also urged that there is nothing on the record to indicate that the applicant is a previous convict. It was also argued, that even though the offence has been committed, yet the mixture in the sample in question is of two edible oils and is not injurious to health. In these circumstances learned counsel prays that the sentences of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. I am inclined to accept this submission.

(3.) Having regard to all the above circumstances, 1 hereby confirm the conviction of the applicant for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00also appears to be excessive, which is hereby reduced to Rs. 500.00. The amount of fine shall be deposited within 3 months from today, failing which the applicant shall suffer 3 months' R.I. The record of the case shall be transmitted to the court below within weeks from today.