SUJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. V. S. Singh learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. A. K. Varma, learned A. G. A. Mr. VS. Singh does not press the revision peti tion against the conviction of the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly the conviction of the revisionist is upheld.

(2.) MR. V. S. Singh presses the revision petition against the substantive sentence of six months awarded to the revisionist for the same offence on the ground that more than 18 years have elapsed since the alleges sample was taken from the seller which was analysed and found adulterated milk deficit of 29% in fats and 65% in non fatty solids. The revisionist on the basis of the same was prosecuted after obtaining sanction for prosecution in this case. The arguments of MR. V. S. Singh is that basi cally and primarily the offence is of obtain ing financial nature and there is at best an ingredient of financial gain and no inten tion to harm the public health nor any substance to injure the public health has been found by the Public analyst. On this basis MR. V. S. Singh argues that sending the revisionist to six months rigorous imprisonment is not going to serve any pur pose of law or justice rather it will harm the human body. According to him the suitable sentence of fine will meet the ends of Justice in this nature of case. He has taken help of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9 SCC 101.

(3.) THE nature of offence alleged and the material available on record justify the argument of Mr. V. S. Singh.