SUKHDEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, dated Sept. 27, 1976 by which he while upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated Dec. 16, 1974 reduced the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition on merits but submits that in view of the circumstances of the case that the oil alleged to have been adulterated is in conformity to the prescribed standard on all the points but according to the report of the Public Analyst it is branded as adulterated only on account of its being highly rancid, a lenient view may be taken in the matter.

(3.) Though there is a special provision for the minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in food adulteration cases and this fact has been taken note of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the proviso to section 16 of the Act empowers the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than six months or a fine of less than Rs. 1000.00 or both imprisonment for a term less than six months and a fine of less than Rs. 1000.00 for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. A perusal of the record shows that the only defect found in the oil was rancidity, hence this, in my opinion, is a fit case in which the sentence for less than six months may be imposed.