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
6 paragraphs · 377 wordsHarbans Singh Rai, J.
On 7111978, Shri C. L. Grover, Government Food Inspector accompanied by Dr. H. R. Goshal, visited the Karyana shop of the accused situated on Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar. He was found in possession of 30 kgs of chillies powder contained in a gunny bag, for public sale. Sample seized was of the chillies which was found to be adulterated on analysis. Petitioner was challaned and the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, vide order dated 5101985 convicted him under section 7 read section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of file he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by Shri Hari Ram, Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 19386.
2 Feeling aggrieved he has filed this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for, the petitioner has not argued on merits but has submitted that the incident relates to 1978 and the petitioner has already undergone agony of trial for the last 11 years and the counsel has prayed for reduction in the sentence. The counsel placed reliance on Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184, AIR 1988 SC 1789 , wherein it was held as under :
"Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court & the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate judge has not made clear reference to clause (f) The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the apparent has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the sentence, though ordinarily in an antisocial offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Court should take strict view of such matter."
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. The petition is dismissed with this modification in the order of sentence.