BABOO LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted for contravention of Sec. 16(l)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Old) and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. by the trial court. His conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Hence this revision which was admitted by me on the question of sentence only.

(2.) According to the allegations of the prosecution the applicant was taking milk in two cans on 11th Nov., 1972 at about 7 AM. when he was intercepted by the Food Inspector. He was asked to produce a licence by the Food Inspector. He could not produce the same. Then the Food Inspector checked both his milk-cans with his lectometer. The first milk can contained milk prescribing the requisite standard. In the second milk can, the milk was found to be adulterated. After completing the formalities the Food Inspector wanted to take a sample from the second milk-can. This was resisted by the applicant who pushed his hand and spilt the milk on the ground. On these allegations the applicant has been prosecuted. Both the courts below have held the prosecution case fully established. In other words they have recorded a concurrent finding that the applicant failed to produce a licence when called upon to do by the Food Inspector and secondly that he did not allow the Food Inspector to take a sample of his milk. The trial court, however, sentenced the applicant to six months' R I. for the above offence. His order was not quite happily worded and in appeal the Sessions Judge clarified the position holding that even though the applicant was guilty of failure to produce the licence and of obstructing the Food Inspector yet only one sentence of 6 months' R.I. has been awarded.

(3.) From a perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any error or illegality in the finding of facts recorded by the courts below. It was open to the Magistrate under the unamended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to have passed separate sentences of 6 months' R.I. for each of the aforesaid offences committed by the accused. It was also open to him to have directed the sentences to run concurrently or consecutively. It appears to me that he has chosen to award only 6 months' R.I. on both the counts without specifying as to how much sentence he is to undergo on each count. This vagueness appears to have clearly prejudiced the accused. The applicant has already been in jail for about 3 months and 3 weeks. In my opinion, he has been sufficiently punished. While, therefore, upholding the conviction of the applicant for the offence for which he has been charged, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. With this modification in sentence this revision application is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.