RAM AUTAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, 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 14.10.1997 and 23.11.1998. The First Additional Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judicial Magistrate, (E.C. Act), Pilibhit vide order dated 14.10.1997 convicted revisionist and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7(1)/16(1)(A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954"). Thereagainst, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1997 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal, confirmed order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred present revision.

(3.) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that punishment be reduced to the period already undergone since it is a matter of 1994 and more than 25 years have already passed.