Om Prakash vs State of U.P.

J.C. Mishra, J.—The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17885 passed by Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 22585 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) convicting the revisionist for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as also under Section 7/16 of the Act read with Rule 50 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1,000 and also sentence of three months for violation of Rule 50 and to fine of Rs. 500. The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the prosecution could not produce any document to show that any licence was required for sale of linseed oil on the date of the incident. This contention appears to be correct. In my opinion, the Courts below committed illegality in convicting the revisionist for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. His conviction for violation of Rule 50 and sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ are set aside.

So far as the conviction under Section 7/16 of the Act on account of the sample having been found adulteration is concerned, the finding does not suffer adulterated and the revisionist was rightly under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

The learned Counsel then contended that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1983 and more than 16 years have elapsed. He contended that a lenient view may be taken. I find force in this contention.

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 Prasad v. State of M. P., reported in 1996

SCC (Criminal) 79 followed by this Bench in Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1934 Sohan Singh alias Swarn Singh 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 linseed oil 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 and7 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 formalise 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.