SHANKER LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued on the merits of the case and rightly so, as it appears from a consideration of the orders passed by the two courts below that the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 16/1 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is fully justified on the basis of the evidence on the record.

(3.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1975 and that the petitioner is a petty Agriculturist who has now stopped the business of selling milk but is engaged only in agricultural operations. Moreover, it is urged that the petitioner has a large family to support consisting of his wife and six children. Learned counsel also submits that the fine may be enhanced if the court considers proper but the substantive sentence should be reduced, looking to the aforesaid circumstances.