MANDRUP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANDRUP son of Madho, resident of village Makhpura was convicted by the learned Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer by his judgment dated June 14, 1971 under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default thereof to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment MANDRUP preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, but without success. He is now before me seeking revision of order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer passed by him on January 5, 1972.

(2.) THE facts of this case are somewhat unusual. On April 9, 1969, Food Inspector K D Wadhwani purchased 660 M. L. of cow's milk from one person, who gave out his name as Madhoo son of Amba Gujar, resident of Makhupura. This name was recorder in the form Ex. P-l and also in form Ex. P-2. THE said sample of milk was sent for analysis, and it was found not to be conforming to the standard of purity prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1935 due to the low percentage of solid non-fat (29% water) A complaint was lodged on 29/30-4-1969. which was given No. 4095/1969. A bailable warrant was issued against the accused for his appearance on 21-5-69 This warrant could not be executed on 21-5 69, 12-6-69, 7-7-69, 26-769, 21-8-69, 12 9-69, 15-10-69,. 30-10-69, 14-11 69, 6 12-69 and 26-12-69 On December 26, 1969 Madhoo son of Salla appeared and he stated that his father's name is not Amba, and, because, the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was adjourned to 27-12-1969. THE statement of Madhoo s/o Salla was recorded, and the witnesses present in the Court did not identify him as the person from whom the sample of milk was taken, thereupon it was ordered that the case be taken upon 17-1-1970, and bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- be issued against the correct person; and Madhoo son of Salla was set free (Riha kiya gaya ). On 17-1-1970, the correct accused was not present nor he was present on 5-2-1970. He appeared for the first time on 21-2 1970,and his bond and bail in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- was taken. THE case was then adjourned to 13-3-1970, on which date, the learned counsel for the accused Mandrup son of Madhoo wanted time, and the case was adjourned to 9-4-1970, but nothing transpired on that day, and the case was adjourned to 16-4-1970. THE proceedings of that day have been very much emphasised before me, and, therefore, I would in the interest of exactitude, like to reproduce them. ,e ih vkbz gkftja eqyfte eu:i e; odhy gkftja ,e ih vkbz us nj[kklr is'k dh fd eqyfte dk uke blrxklk esa xyr fy[kk x;k gs vksj blrxklk xyr uke ls is'k fd;k x;k gsa vr% blrxklk nkf[ky nqrj fd;k tkos vksj lgh uke ls blrxklk is'k djus dh btktr nh tkosa

(3.) THE next argument of Mr. Mohnani is that it was a case of very low percentage in solid not fat, and is not so serious as to warrant substantive sentence for a first offender, particularly when the transaction took place in 1969. THE learned Sessions Judge declined to reduce the sentence on the ground that a person who holds out a false name deserves no leniency. Probably, it was this wrong which was responsible for the dragging of all the proceedings from 1969 to 1970; and, now an advantage is sought to be taken on the basis of a wrong committed by the accused