LAWS(P&H)-1985-3-73

VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 05, 1985
VINOD KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

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 four months, under section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the trial Magistrate. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner came up in revision in this Court. The same was admitted by M.M. Punchhi, J., vide his order dated 23rd May, 1984.

(2.) ON 14th January, 1982. Dr. J.S. Sohi inspected the premises of the petitioner. He was found in possession of 30kg of mustard oil for sale. After disclosing his identity the Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of mustard oil from the petitioner after payment of Rs. 5.40 vide receipt. Exhibit PB signed by the petitioner. A sample was taken out of it and sent to the Public Analyst for Analysis. According to the report of the Public Analyst Exhibit PD, the sample was not clear and contained suspended matter settled at the bottom whereas it should be clear from suspended matter.

(3.) MR . K.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not addressed me on the merits. He submits that the petitioner is a young man of 26 years of age, that he is a first offender, that he has been facing the trial since the year 1982 and that he has been on bail under the orders of this Court since 1984. Therefore, he prays that leniency in the sentence is called for. Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel and also the nature of the adulteration, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail. I feel a case for imposing lesser sentence that the minimum prescribed under the law is made out. Consequently I reduce the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner to the one already undergone by him. However, the sentence of fine and of imprisonment in lieu thereof would remain undisturbed. But for this modification this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.