DOONAMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Doonamal was convicted under section 16 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Munsif Magistrate, Sirohi vide his judgment dated 4-7-73 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - , in default of the payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. He preferred appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi. In the appeal the conviction was, however maintained but the period of imprisonment was reduced from 9 months to six months and the amount of fine was maintained, vide judgment dated 2nd of Nov., 1973. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence as aforesaid the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sanction for prosecution given vide Ex. P. 6 is bad in law as the sanctioning authority has failed to apply its mind to the facts of the present case. In this sanction order Ex. P. 6 reference to the report No. 572/S-491 dated 29-2-68 of the public analyst has been made while the report of the public analyst in the present case Ex. P. 5 is No. 574/S-234 dated 29-2-68. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is that the sanctioning authority has not properly applied its mind while giving sanction. It may be said that no such grudge was made on behalf of the petitioner either at the trial court or in the appellate court. However, from the perusal of Ex. P. 6 it is clear that it refers to report No. 18 dated 19-2-68 of the Food Inspector Abu Road. Ex. P. 5, the report of the public analyst has also referred to the report of the Food Inspector No, 18 dated 19-2-68. Ex. 4 which is the report of the Food Inspector in form No. 7 is not numbered 18 dated 19-2-68 which is the basis of this case. In these circumstances the sanction is fully connected with this particular prosecution. It cannot, therefore, be said in the circumstances of the present case that the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind. The mention of the report No. 572/S-491 of the public analyst Ex. P. 6 seems to be clerical error and it was for the petitioner to have clarified this position. If he had any grudge or doubt about the proper sanction. This point, therefore, is of no avail to the petitioner.

(3.) The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this occurrence is of 19-2-68 i.e. more than 91/2 years and the petitioner has undergone protected criminal proceedings for such a long period in the trial court and the appellate court; the case having been remanded twice by the appellate court. This revision petition was also filed on 8-11-73 i. e. about, 4 years ago. In the circumstances it will not be just and proper to send the petitioner to jail again. He had already undergone imprisonment for about 8 days and the said adulteration is of a technical nature.