GOPAL KRISHNA PANDIT Vs. BHAVAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this revision against the Judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain, in Cr. A. 154/74, on 28-8-74 whereby while upholding the conviction of the respondent, under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence of R.I. for 9 months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 awarded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain in Cr. Case No. 496/76, was reduced to a fine of Rs. 1000.00 only.

(2.) The short question involved in this revision is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in interfering and thereby reducing the jail sentence awarded by the trial court. The learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for enhancement of sentence on the ground that the minimum jail sentence, as prescribed in the Act, ought to have been imposed on the respondent once it is found that the sample of milk taken, on analysis, was found to be below the prescribed standard and adulterated. It was urged that in the present case though the milk fat in the sample was 7.4% as against the prescribed standard of 5%; the deficiency in solid non-fat was 0.72% i.e. added water was 8% as per the report of the Public Analyst and the adulteration of milk comparatively being more than 7 per cent, the respondent could not be let off with the sentence of fine only and placed reliance on a decision reported in State of M.P. Vs. Nandram 1969 M.P.L.J. Note 93, wherein only a sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 was awarded, instead of any jail sentence, as the percentage of added water in that case did not exceed 7% and any excess over 7% should not be considered as marginal or negligible. In the present case, it has exceeded by 1% more.

(3.) The respondent did not appear in person nor was he represented by any counsel in this Court.