MUNFAIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Raghu raj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist Munfait who has been con victed and sentenced under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 1159 of 1981 P. S. Rurkee, District Saharanpur. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press the revision petition against the finding of conviction of the trial Court confirmed by the lower appellate Court holding the ac cused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling the adul terated milk the sample of which was analysed and examined by the Public Analyst.

(2.) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the revisionist pressed the revision peti tion on the question of sentence awarded to the revisionist. His grievance is that the substantive sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment is not required to meet the ends of justice in the present case as the revisionist was not found selling anything injurious to human health simply quantum of water mixed with milk was the finding of the Public Analyst which ac cording to Mr. Raghuraj Kishore is a profit motive making out a case in which a sentence of line will meet the ends of justice.

(3.) THE revisionist has already remained in jail custody for more than a month as per submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist. Considering the old age of the revision petition and the fact that the revisionist has already remained in jail custody for a term of more than a month, the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist appears convincing.