Chouthmal Agarwalla vs State of Assam

P.G. Agarwal, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order passed on 31.1.91 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat whereby Criminal Appeal No. 16/90 preferred against the judgment and order passed in C.R. Case No. 185/89 was dismissed.

I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The Food Inspector collected sample of salt from the shop of the accused Petitioner which on analysis found to be deficient in iodine content and accordingly the accused was prosecuted. Learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused Petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default further imprisonment to one month.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that this is a case of deficiency in iodine content of the salt which may occur due to exposure of iodised salt to sunlight, rain etc., and also for long storage as the iodised salt in question is imported to North Eastern States of the country. The accused Petitioner is in no way responsible for the alleged deficiency. The standard of iodised salt is laid down in Appendix-B of the P.F. Rules and any variation of the same on the lower side will make the sample adulterated. There is nothing in the above Rules providing for a lesser limit of iodine for the North Eastern States as has been provided in the case of milk. The requirement of iodine content of salt is 15 ppm whereas the concerned sample had only 3.6 ppm. I therefore find no force in this plea.

The next submission of the learned Counsel is regarding the sentence of imprisonment. It is submitted that the accused person facing this prosecution for the last ten years is an old man aged about 70 years in the year 1990 and now he will be around 80 years. Thus the sentence of imprisonment may be substituted by fine only. Learned Counsel has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Shri Harigopal Agarwalla v. The State of Assam (Crl. Revision No. 287/90) passed on 6.8.96 wherein the substantive sentence of imprisonment was substituted by fine only, considering the delay of 11 years. The above case was also in respect of Food Adulteration Act. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No 780/93 and SLP (Crl.) 1673/ 93 this Court in another Criminal Revision No. 80 of 1991 decided on 20.4.98 extended the similar benefits to the accused Appellant by substituting the substantive sentence of imprisonment.

In the case in hand there is a lapse of 10 years from the date of occurrence. Moreover, the accused Petitioner is aged about 80 years as on today. In the statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded in 1990 the age has been recorded as 70 years. It is further submitted that the accused is now retiring, ailing person and no purpose will be served by sending this ripe old person to jail now.

In view of the above the conviction of the accused Petitioner is affirmed but the substantive, sentence of imprisonment is set aside. However, the fine is raised from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The accused Petitioner is given 45 days time to pay the fine before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat or to serve out the sentence. If he fails to do so the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.