LOONARAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On April 25, 1972 at 7.30 a.m. Food Inspector PWI Jameel Ahmed found the accused carrying milk for sale. He purchased 660 milliliter of milk from the accused, after, giving notice. The milk was divided in three equal portion and was filled in three clean. The bottles. One of the bottle was given to the accused and the other was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst who found the sample of the milk to be adulterated. A complaint Was filed in the court of the Sub, Divisional Magistrate Sikar, which was later or transferred to the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, During the course of trial the accused submitted his own bottle for being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. It was analysed by the Director of Food Laboratory at Calcutta as desired by the accused and the milk was found to be adulterated as it did not tally with the prescribed standard. The learned Magistrate after trial found the accused guilty of the offence punishable, under Sec. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to six months, rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by his judgment dated September 12, 1975.

(2.) The aggrieved accused went up in appeal, but without any success. Hence this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner taking into consideration the scope of revision and preponderance of evidence on the record has rightly not challenged the conviction on merits The only point pressed before me is that the accused petitioner is an agriculturist by Profession. He has given up the business of selling milk from the date of his conviction by the trial court and has turned a new leaf in life and it required to maintain a large family. He has been attending the court regularly during trial and a period of five years has elapsed in between the date of the commission of the offence and the hearing of the revision petition. The offence committed by the accused comes under sub clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such the provision to Sec. 16 of the aforesaid Act is attracted to it and the sentence may be reduced.