SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.L. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 04.08.1994 and 14.11.1995. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 04.08.1994 convicted revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Thereagainst, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1994 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal, confirmed order of conviction passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred present revision.

(3.) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that it is an old matter, incident took place in 1992 and this revision is also pending before this Court for the last 24 years, therefore, on the question of sentence this Court should take a lenient view.