AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 401 wordsP.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri A, P. Misra, brief holder of Sri A. D. Giri learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA
Revisionist, Bechan, was convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by III Addl. MunsifMagistrate, Mirzapur and was sentenced to undergo R. I. fox six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for two months. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1982 filed against the judgment and order of the trial Court was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur.
Present revision is pressed on the question of quantum of sentence. It is contended that the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1980 i.e. about 17 years back. No useful purpose shall be served by sending the revisionist to jail after lapse of 17 years. The revisionist has already suffered imprisonment for about three weeks after dismissal of the appeal and was taken into custody. Learned AGA says that minimum sentence is provided under Section 16 which cannot be reduced in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Section 16 provides minimum sentence of six months and a fine not less than one thousand. Proviso (i) to subsection (1) of Section 16 provides that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months if the offence is under subclause (1) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of subclause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2.
The revisionist''s case is covered by subclause (1) of clause (a) and is in respect of an article of food being primary food. In view of the proviso mentioned above the sentence of imprisonment can, at the best, be reduced to three months in case there exists adequate and special reasons. Except the fact that offence was committed in the year 1980 which is not adequate reason there is no special and adequate reason for reducing the minimum sentence awarded by the courts below.
There is no merit in this revision. It is hereby dismissed. Stay order dated 1421983 is vacated.
Revision dismissed