RAMDAS ALIAS RAMDARAS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affirming the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and conviction for violation of rule 50 read with Sec. 16 of the said Act and the sentence awarded to the applicant by the Munsif-Magistrate, Deoria in Case No. 1648 of 1982, the III Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria dismissed the appeal of (Appeal No. 384 of 1982) on the 1st. of Aug., 1983. This revision is directed the accused-applicant against the decision given by III Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria.

(2.) The findings recorded by both the courts below on the question of fact viz. the applicant was found selling an adulterated article of food and had further committed the breach of the provisions of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, do not in my opinion, suffer from infirmity. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant recorded under the said sections does not call for interference.

(3.) In the ends of justice, the sentence of one year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 awarded under Sec. 7/16 of the said Act is substituted by six months' Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine, the applicant shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentence awarded under the second point is affirmed. Both the sentences shall however be concurrent.