VED PARKASH Vs. U T OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the trial Court under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. His conviction and sentence were confirmed by the lower appellate Court. He came up in revision in this Court. The revision was admitted by S.S. Kang, J., on 27th January, 1983, and he has been on bail since then under the orders of this Court. The said sample of anardana was taken in the year 1978. Since then the petitioner has been facing the agony of trial. He is an old man of 56 years of age and has also a large family to support. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by sending this old man again to Jail. I think a case for not awarding the minimum sentence prescribed under the law is made out. Consequently, I reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to that already undergone. However the fine and the sentence in lieu of it would remain undisturbed. With this modification the revision fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.