RAM SUKH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused petitioner has been convicted Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the PFA Act) and has been sentenced to undergo six month's R.I. and to a pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -and default of payment of fine to further suffer three month's R.I.

(2.) BESIDES raising other submissions it was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the sample was taken from the possession of the accused petitioner on 18th February, 1976 and the accused petitioner was only carrier of milk. At that time as the law stood, the court had discretion to award a sentence of less than six months for the reasons to be recorded. He contends that the amendment Under Section 16 was introduced in April, 1976 where in the discretion of the court in respect of sentence was altered and the court was to impose a sentence of six months and fine and only in case the case falls under the first Proviso to Section 16 of the PFA Act, sentence of three months and fine of rupees five hundred should have been awarded.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I here by partly allow this revision petition. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner Under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act, the accused petitioner is sentenced to a sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to further accused petitioner to deposit the payment of fine in the trial court failing which the trial court shall take steps either to get the payment of fine recovered from the accused petitioner or to apprehend the accused petitioner to undergo the sentence in lieu of payment of fine.