NANHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Food Inspector had purchased the sample of milk ; from the applicant accused on 21-10-1975. The sample taken was of the cow and buffalo milk combined. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst and I was found not to conform to the prescribed standard. Hence the applicant accused was put up for trial. The trial court convicted and sentenced the applicant accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Appeal was preferred against the same. Appeal was, however, dismissed and the conviction and sentences as passed by the trial Court were maintained. Hence now, the present revision.

(2.) The appellant accused is a petty milk-vendor belonging to a village. There is no previous conviction against him. Standard prescribed for the mixed milk is minimum 4.5% milk fat and 8.5% milk solid non fat. In the instant case, the Public Analyst found the milk fat content to be 9% and 4 total solids other than the milk fat as 7.3%. Thus in the present case, adulteration is found to be a marginal extent. The applicant accused is found to have remained in jail at least for a period of four days. The total period consumed in the trial Court was five years. Then again, four months were taken in disposal of the appeal in the lower Court. Revision, however, in this Court is pending for only the last two months. The applicant-accused must have naturally suffered sufficient mental torture and agony by his long trial for all these years in the trial court as well as in the appellate Court. This in itself is a sufficient punishment in the particular circumstances that the applicant-accused is a first offender and that too belonging to the village community and that extent of adulteration, as found, is quite marginal. This Court, in its order passed in Criminal Revision No. 418 of 1972 which has been cited before me, has considered quite a large number of cases with attending circumstances therein in the matter of awarding of the sentences. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that in the present case, ends of justice would be duly met if the applicant accused is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone, coupled with heavy sentence of fine of Rs. 1500.00.

(3.) In the result, thus, the revision is allowed partially, only in the matter of sentence. Maintaining the order of conviction as passed by the both the Courts, it is ordered in modification of the lower appellate Court's order of sentence, that the applicant accused be and now sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500.00; and in default of fine, to undergo eight months' RI, for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The fine amount be paid in the trial Court within a month from today, failing which the applicant accused be remanded to the judicial custody for undergoing the sentence in default of fine. Revision allowed.