RAM CHANDER Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on March 22, 1974 the Food Inspector Shri Gaurishanker visited the shop of the petitioner at 7-30 p.m. Having disclosed his identity to the accused-petitioner the Inspector served a notice and then purchased 750 Grams of ice candy. The ice candy was divided into three parts. Each part was then filled in three clean and dry bottles. The requisite quantity of .formalin was added to it in each bottle. All the three bottles were corked and sealed and wrapped by the Food Inspector in the presence of the attesting witnesses. A memorandum containing all the details was also prepared. One sample of the bottle was given to the accused-petitioner and the other was sent to the Public Analyst, Udaipur for analysis. The sealed bottle was received by the Public Analyst on April 26, 1974. The Public Analyst on an lysis found that the sample of the ice-candy was adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction the Food Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the prosecution evidence held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of the payment of which to further undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused-petitioner challenged his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge but without any success. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) Looking to the preponderance of the evidence on record, the concurrent findings of the two courts below and considering the scope of revision the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not challenged the conviction of the accused-petitioner on merits The only point pressed before me is regarding quantum of sentence. The learned counsel has urged that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1974, and the accused has faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for three years in three courts. That the accused-petitioner and his brother have given up the business of selling ice candy. They were running a petty shop and the accused-petitioner is suffering from ill-health. He has also remained behind the bars for a period of three months and eight days, and as such it would be in the interest of justice if the accused-petitioner is ordered to be released. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case and the extenuating facts, I consider it to be just and proper to extend the benefit of the proviso to Sec. 16 of the Act.

(3.) The offence committed by the accused-petitioner was under Sub-Section (i) of Clause (a) of Sec. 16 of the Act and was with respect to an article of food which was adulterated under sub-clause (1J of Clause (i) of Sec. 2 of the Act. The proviso to Sec. 16 of the Act is therefore applicable. The offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 19/4.