RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 30.6.1975, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) The facts are that on 12.2.1974 a sample of vegetable oil was taken from the shop of accused and the same was found adulterated on chemical examination.

(3.) The only point pressed before me is with regard to the sentence, and it was argued that adequate and special reasons exist in the case for imposing a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. It was submitted that the shop from where the sample was taken was very small and it is not proved that the accused was the owner of the shop. It may be that he was only casually looking after the shop as would be evident from the defence evidence and from the statement of P. W. 3 Chimal Lal. This evidence discloses that the owner of the shop was some relation of Ram Dayal. The sample taken was adulterated but not injurious to health. The offence was also committed in the year 1974, and the accused has been released on bail, after under going imprisonment one month from, the year 1975. It would be very hard if the accused be sent back to the jail for serving out the remaining portion of the sentence. It was further argued that the legislature have its owe doubts about imposing a minimum sentences of six months. Minimum sentence which is now to be imposed is only three months.