MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist Manoj Kumar and Mr. Surinder Lamba learned AAG for the State of Haryana-respondent. The revisionist Manoj Kumar was tried in the court of Sh. B. Diwakar, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short to be referred as Act) in case No. 164/2 dated 18.11.1993. The charge brought against the revisionist was about the adulteration of milk of cow which was stored in about 20 bottles and was displayed for public sale. These bottles were stored in refrigerator.

(2.) ON facts a sample was drawn according to the rules by the Food Inspector and the same, after analysis, was found to be adulterated. A complaint was duly filed after obtaining due sanction of the relevant authority and the revisionist was put on trial on the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Learned Magistrate found the prosecution evidence sufficient to convict the revisionist of the charge punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The revisionist Manoj Kumar challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1996, which came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad on 10.9.1997. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate had rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and further noticed that since the minimum sentence prescribed for the commission of the offence had already been awarded no cause for showing further leniency arose and in the result the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) MR . H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate for revisionist contended that the revisionist deserves to be dealt with leniently on three grounds which, according to him, were adequate for allowing the sentence to be still reduced further from the minimum sentence awarded under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. These facts and circumstances, in short, were: