RAMGOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 19-12-88 maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar vide his judgment dated 22-12-86 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) This revision petition was preferred in Jan., 1989 and this court had directed that the record be sent for and case may be listed for admission. Thereafter requisition for sending for the record was sent as early as 12th Jan., 1989, but till date record has not been received and the accused cannot be kept indefinitely in prison, therefore this revision petition was taken up for admission and was heard with the assistance of the record available with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the judgment of both the courts below and the record made available to me. I do not find that it is a fit case for interference on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner also realising that there is little scope for interference in this revision petition there being concurrent finding of the two courts, confined his arguments only to the quantum of sentence. He made reliance on Dal Chand Vs. The State of Raj., S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 225/88, decided on 28-2-1989 and prayed that substantive sentence of imprisonment be reduced. The accused is in jail since 19th Dec., 1988 and has been facing trial also for quite few years. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet in case the substantive sentence is reduced from one year's rigorous imprisonment to three month's rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) The result is that this revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner is maintained but his substantive sentence is reduced from one year's rigorous imprisonment to three months' rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. He is given one moth's time to deposit the fine if not deposited so far. Revision partly allowed.