RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has been concurrently found guilty under section 7 (i) read with section 2 (ia) (a) and section 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/with default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is a milk vendor. PW 1, the Food Inspector, Datia on 3rd July, 1985 purchased a sample of Cow's milk from the revision petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two Courts below should have invoked the first proviso of section 16 of the Act and awarded the lesser sentence on the petitioner. The revision petitioner was 21 years at the time of occurrence. He has given up the profession of milk vending. There is non -conformity regarding only one of the standards prescribed.