KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner runs a tea stall at Mani Majra. On the 29th of March, 1971, at about 2-15 P.M., Food Inspector Mohinder Singh (P.W. 1) went to the stall of the petitioner, found him in possession of about 15 kilograms of cow's boiled milk and took therefrom against payment a sample which was found by the Public Analyst to be deficient in milk fats to the extent of 30 per cent, and non-fatty milk solids to the extent of 32 per cent, judged by the prescribed standard. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the sentence in default of payment of fine being further rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, upheld the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence awarded to him to rigorous imprisonment for six months, leaving intact the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine. The petitioner has now come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the conviction is well based and not liable to be set aside. He urges, however, that the offence brought home to the petitioner is only a technical one in view of the fact that he is carrying on the business of selling tea and meals only and not of selling milk as such and that, therefore, the punishment awarded to him should be nominal. With this contention I find myself in agreement. The fact that the petitioner does not sell milk as such but serves only tea and meals to his customers is not disputed on behalf of the State. and if that be so, the offence committed by him is merely technical in nature as held in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal, 1964 AIR(All) 199 and The Chairman. Jugsalai Notified Area Committee v. Mukhram Sharma, 1969 AIR(Pat) 155. Further the offence is covered by the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the Act and my finding that it is merely of a technical nature constitutes a special reason why only a nominal sentence would meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly reduced to imprisonment already undergone by him which works out to rigorous imprisonment for 16 days, the fine being remitted in its entirety. The petition is accepted to that extent only, it being dismissed in so far as it challenges the conviction of the petitioner. Petition partly allowed.