OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. P. N. Lal learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. The revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 387 of 1982 PS. Jaspur, District Nainital. The incident is dated 8-9-1982 when the sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the revisionist and on analysis the sample was found adulterated by the Public Analyst who reported 4% and 10% deficiency in the fatty and non-fatty solids.

(2.) MR. Lal has placed the lower appel late Court judgment to convince the Court that the petitioner is a tea vendor and so he should not be convicted for selling adul terated milk.

(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. Lal points out that the sentence of one year's rigorous im prisonment awarded to the revisionist is much excessive considering the nature of the deficiency noted by the Public Analyst in the sample of milk. This Court has care fully perused the reasons given in the im pugned judgment. The minimum sentence provided under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is only six months. No specific reason has been noted by the Courts below for awarding the sen tence of one year rigorous imprisonment to the revisionist besides a sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000.