KULDIP RAI Vs. STATE FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case, on 18th July, 1990 at 11. 00 a. m. , Food Inspector took into possession in a tin of the mustered oil weighing 10 kg from the petitioner. Sample was sent to Public analyst and it was found that the mustered oil was not in conformity with the prescribed standard. Petitioner was put to trial in a complaint filed by Food Inspector.

(2.) MR. H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has out rightly stated that in the present case, he will not challenge the conviction. The courts below have returned findings of fact after appreciating the evidence. Mr. Gill has been candid enough to state that he is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the two courts below. Mr. Gill has stated that he will confine his argument for grant of probation to the petitioner as the occurrence pertain to 18th July, 1990 and a period of more than 17 years has elapsed. Mr. Gill, on instructions from Mr. Vivek Goel, has stated that in the last 17 years, petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been leading his life as an honest citizen. Mr. Gill has further stated that as per head note of the judgment of the trial court, petitioner was aged 32 years and petitioner is a petty shopkeeper in a village adjoining Chandigarh, thereby submitted that petitioner himself is not a manufacturer but a retailer.

(3.) TAKING into account totality of circumstances, submissions made by Mr. Gill, ends of justice will be met in case petitioner is released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, chandigarh to the effect that he will maintain good conduct and behaviour and will not commit any offence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000. The same shall be construed as litigation expenses.