JEETSINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON January 31, 1974 at 10 a.m Food Inspector PW 1 Hanuman Modi stopped a bus. On checking the accused petitioner was found carrying milk for sale. 660 millilitre of milk was purchased from the accused petitioner by the Food Inspector, after complying with the forma ities provided under the Act The milk was divided in three equal parts. Each of them was filled in three clean dry bottles and they were sealed in preseace of the accused -petitioner. One bottle was kept by the Food Inspector, the other was given t the accused and the third one was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst at Jaipur, who found the milk to be adulterated. The Food Inspector after obtaining sanction filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar The learned Magistrate placing reliance on the statement of the Food Inspector corroborated by the PW. 2 Harnarain, PW. 3 Pooranchand and taking into consideration the report of the Public Analyst found the accused petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -.

(2.) THE aggrieved accused petitioner went up in appeal but without any success. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE offence committed by the accused -petitioner was under Sub -section (1) of Clause (a) of Section 16 of the Act and was with respect to an article of food which was adulterated under Sub -clause (i) of Clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act The proviso to Section 16 of the Act is, therefore, applicable. The offence is alleged to have been committed in the month of January, 1974 and the accused has been attending the court regularly. Hanging of a Damoclean sword for three years on the head of the petitioner and uncertainty of the result of the case does obstruct the normal continuity of life In Sarjoo Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh : 1961CriLJ747 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with such an argument observed as under: The appellant was merely an employee of Thakur Din. It is not shown that he made himself any profit out of the transaction Thakur Din has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - only The offence committed by the appellant is a repetition of a similar offence committed by him a few months earlier, but we think to at having regard to all the circumstances this is a case in which there are special and adequate reasons which would justify imposition of a penalty less than the minimum prescribed by Section 16of the Act.