Munnar vs State of U.P.

J. C. Mishra, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7287 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 13984 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Gorakhpur convicting the revisionist for offences punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to | undergo one year rigorous imprisonment andafineofRs.2000/.

The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecution failed to examine the public witnesses and since the report of the Public Analyst does not contain the various details his opinion could not be accepted. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and submission of the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this argument. The appellate Court has considered all the pleas in detail and no contrary view is possible. I find that the accused was rightly convicted.

The fact remains that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1977. About 23 years elapsed. In these circumstances I do not find it a fit case to send the accused to jail. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Badri Prasadv. State of M. P., 1990 SCC (Crl) 79, followed by this Bench in Criminal Revision, No. 2100 of 1984 Sohan Singh alias v. State of U.P, I modify the sentence awarded as under.

Considering the nature of the accusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, therefore, the rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate Court is altered to minimum period but of simple imprisonment.

In view of the facts stated above provisionally instead of sentence of six months simple imprisonment, the revisionist is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 6000/ including the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act on account of the Dhania being adulterated and Rs. 1000/ including fine for violation of Rule 50 with the direction to the revisionist to deposit the fine imposed in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Court of Magistrate concerned and to apprise the State Government that the amount has been deposited with a copy of receipt and copy of this, order. The revisionist on doing so need not be arrested. The State Government on receipt of the copy of the order and receipt evidencing deposit of fine may formalize the commutation in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.

In case the accused fails to deposit the fine imposed as ordered he shall serve out the sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered.

The Magistrate concerned shall intimate the alteration of the sentence to the revisionist on receipt of the copy of this order.

The revision is disposed of with modification of sentence as aforesaid while maintaining the conviction.

Revision disposed of.