CHAND ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-4-84 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 20-12-83 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) SRI Samit Jain, the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that thesanc-tion for prosecution was accorded without application of mind; there was non-compliance of Sections 10 (7) and 13 (2) of the Act; the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with despite the alleged adulteration the coriander was not unfit for human consumption; the revisionist was entitled to be released on probation.

(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstan ces of the case that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1980 it would not be proper to send the accused to jailafter such a long time; more so when he had served at least few days' sentence after his convic tion. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v, K. Rajeshwar Rao, (1992) 1 SCC 365, aftered the sentence of imprisonment to sentence of fine on the ground that 15 years had passed by from the date of of fence and at this distance of time the ends of justice may not be served by sending the respondent to imprisonment. It is suffice that he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution.