HAZARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 10th August, 1982 of the learned Sessions Judge No. 2, Baran upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but reducing the sentence from the one year's rigorous imprisonment to three months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution story in nut-shell is that on February 24, 1972 Food Inspector found the accused-petitioner selling milk. THE Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity purchased 660 Mil. Ltr. of milk. THE milk was divided into three parts, each of which was filled in three clean bottles. In all the three bottles requisite quantity of formaline was added. THE bottles were sealed in the presence of the petitioner. A memorandum, containing the details of the action taken by the Food Inspector was prepared. One sample bottle was sent to the public Analyst along with a specimen of the seal impression. THE form containing specimen seal was separately sent to the Public Analyst. THE third sample bottle was retained by the Department. THE sealed bottle was given to the accused. Another sample bottle was duly received by the Public Analyst and he found the bottle properly sealed and fastened and the seal was noticed by him to be intact, unbroken and similar to the seal impression given in the memorandum. He analysed the contents of the bottle and found the milk to be adulterated. In his opinion the sample of the milk contained 40% of the added water. A complaint was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Baran under section 7/16 of the Act. THE accused denied his complicity in the crime. THE prosecution examined two witnesses in support of its case. THE accused did not produce any defence witness THE learned Magistrate found the accused Hazari Lal guilty of offence punishable under sections 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. THE appeal filed by the accused petitioner came up for decision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, who after perusal of the record and after considering the entire evidence in the light of the arguments advanced before him, maintained the conviction of the accused. He, however, reduced the sentence from one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- to three months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. Hence, this revision.

(3.) NOW coming to the case in hand, the accused petitioner was found selling adulterated milk on February 24, 1972 as also on October 14, 1972. He was prosecuted and convicted in the cases relating to the offences committed by him on both the occasions. His convictions have been maintained by the appellate court. Both the revisions arising out of the judgments of the same date have been listed before me. He is undoubtedly a previous convict. Reference in this connection be made with advantage to Emperor vs. Lal (9 ). In the facts and circumstances of the case when the accused is previous convict, the substantive sentence of three months' imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner cannot be said to be excessive.