BALBIRSINGH FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non applicant was prosecuted for an offence under section 7(i) read with Sec. 16(i)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as the sample of milk taken from him for analysis was, on analysis, found to be below the prescribed standard and adulterated as per report 8 of the Public Analyst and the non applicant was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default, further rigorous imprisonment for four months, in Criminal case No. 545/72, by the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain. The non applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ujjain who maintain the conviction of the non applicant but set aside the sentence of imprisonment for nine months while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs 1000.00with rigorous imprisonment for four months in default, by his judgment dated 18th Dec. 1974, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 225, The applicant Food Inspector of Ujjain Municipal Corporation, has filed revision for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) Under the old Act, the sentences provided for the first offence and subsequent offence was different, whereas under the present Act, them in sentence for the first offence itself has been prescribed to be rig imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00.

(3.) The milk was found to be deficient in milk-solid-non-fat to extent of 1.45 per cent which means that the percentage of water added not negligible but was substantial. In these circumstances, I am opinion that there was no justification for setting aside the whole sent rigorous imprisonment awarded to the non applicant.