Sindhi vs Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

Brief facts of the case are that a sample of cow''s milk was taken from the applicant by Food Inspector, M. N. Singh, near Mama-Bhanja Tonga stand. After completing the formalities of preparing Form VI, sealing the sample phial, obtaining signatures of the applicant as well as the Food Inspector and witnesses over these papers, the Food Inspector had deposited the sample phials at the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Agra. One phial of the sample was sent to the public analyst. According to the report of the public analyst, the sample was found to be deficient in non-fatty solid contents by 26% (per cent). The required quantity of the non-fatty solid in cow''s milk is 85%. In the result, the applicant was prosecuted in the year 1980 by the Food Inspector. The prosecution ended into conviction of the applicant on 20.10.1984. The applicant was convicted u/s 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and he was awarded a sentence of 6 months'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was to undergo further sentence of 3 months'' R.I. His appeal also met with failure. His conviction and sentence under provisions of the above said Act were confirmed by learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra, Sri Swatantra Singh, vide his judgment and order dated 24.1.1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1984.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has very candidly submitted no argument on merits. The only contention that he has raised before this Court is consideration of this revision on the quantum of sentence.

As earlier stated, the sample in this case was taken on 26.5.1979 and the first conviction was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Agra, on 20.10.1984. The appeal of the applicant was dismissed as far back as on 24.1.1987. This revision was admitted in this Court on 5.2.1987 and is pending consideration here till this date. In all this revision has languished for hearing in this Court for over 13 years.

Considering the date of taking of the sample, the date of first conviction and the date of dismissal of his appeal, the applicant had fought this case in various Courts now for over 20 years. The deficiency is only in non-fatty solids. This deficiency does not render the milk in any manner injurious to health of its consumers. This aspect is not of much utility while deciding a case under this Act. Such a finding is required only when the article of food is alleged to be obnoxious by the prosecution. It is used as a compassionate factor.

Taking into consideration all the abovesaid facts, in my opinion, it shall not be expedient in the interest of justice to send this applicant again back to jail for a short period of 6 months. In the circumstances, it will be proper if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and in lieu thereof a fine of Rs. 5,000 in addition to the fine imposed by the trial court is imposed upon the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deposit this fine in the trial court within 8 weeks from today. Once the fine is deposited, he will make an application to the Government of Uttar Pradesh u/s 433(d), Cr. P.C. along with a copy of the receipt of deposit of fine. The Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to consider the case of the applicant, if such an application is made to it, in the light of the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. He has undergone a few days sentence.

In the result, the conviction of the applicant is upheld, but instead of sending him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and he shall pay the fine of Rs. 6,000, as awarded above, within 8 weeks from today. His application, if moved, shall be considered by the State Government in the light of the above observations, as required by the provisions of Section 433(d), Cr. P.C. If no such application is made to the State Government, the applicant shall undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

With the above modification in sentence, the revision stands finally disposed of.