GOPAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the Parties. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated Sept. 16, 1976 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur city upholding the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur dated Sept. 20, 1974 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner Gopal under S. 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default of the payment of which to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months, He was also convicted for contravention of Rule 50 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200.00. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the prosecution evidence held that the accused petitioner Gopal sold 660 M.L of milk to the Food Inspector PW 1 Milap Chand at 8-15 p.m. on Sept., 5, 1969. He further held that the milk sold by the petitioner was adulterated, because it contained 29% of added water, as mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst Ex, P. 6. On the basis of the above findings he convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as mentioned above. The appeal filed by the petitioner met with no success. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) The controversy, in this case, has been reduced to a narrow compass, as the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner keeping in view the concurrent finding of the two courts below on fact has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioner on merits. He has rightly done so.

(3.) The only point which has been pressed before me is regarding sentence. The occurrence is of the year 1969 A.D. A period of more than 7 years has elapsed in between the commission of the offence and the hearing of this revision petition. It has further been urged that the accused-petitioner was below 21 years of age on the date of commission of the offence, and is not a milk vendor by profession, and as such the question of repetition of the offence does not arise. All these facts can be validly taken into consideration while reducing the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner.