PHOOLCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the trial court for having sold adulterated Goat's milk and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 month and a fine of Rs. 1000.00. On an appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Tonk.

(3.) Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the lower court that the petitioner was found selling adulterated milk. He however, submitted that looking to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the rigors of this litigation for the last about 15 or 16 years and has also undergone sentence of about 2 months. a lenient view of the matter be taken and the sentence already undergone by the petitioner be considered sufficient in this case. In this behalf the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 18/90 Prahlad Vs. State decided on 19.8.1990 and S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 119/90 Banshidhar Vs. State decided on 10.8.90 wherein, on similar facts, this court had taken the view that the sentence already undergone by the petitioners in those cases was considered sufficient punishment for the offence committed by them.