PRAHLAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Tonk whereby he upheld the conviction under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. In default of payment of fine undergo further one month R. I. Mr. Narendra Jain appeared for the accused-petitioner did not press the revision petition on merits. His main submission was that this is the first offence of the accused-petitioner. He faced criminal proceedings for about ten years and already remained in Jail for nine days. No other offence is committed by him, therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgments of courts below.

(2.) I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on the record as revision petition is not pressed on merits. There is no need to repeat the facts. The basic and relevant facts are not in dispute that offence was committed on 30-1-1982. Practically more than ten years the accused has faced the criminal proceedings. The fact is also not disputed that this is the first offence of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner is small milk-vendor. He remained in jail for nine days. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to give him an opportunity to reform himself and rehabilitate in the society, instead of throwing him in the jail among the criminals.

(3.) In the result the conviction is upheld and sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, fine of Rs. 1000.00 is sustained. In default of payment of fine undergo one month simple imprisonment. Fine should be deposited within a period of two months from the date of this order. The revision petition is party allowed.