VIRENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stands convicted for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner is that the milk in his possession was found adulterated because as per the report of Public Analyst, the sample contained 3.7% of milk fat and 8.2% of milk solids against the minimum specified limits of 4.0% and 8.5% respectively. On the basis of evidence, the petitioner was convicted and sentence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act for a period of six months RI with fine of 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) As per the State counsel, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is six months RI, which can go upto a period of two years and Court can not award sentence less than six months, which is the minimum prescribed under the Act. In support, the counsel has referred to Siya Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 4 RCR(Cri) 403.