HARISH CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
HARISH CHANDRA PANDEY
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Barin Ghosh, J. -
(1.) IT is not in dispute that, according to the standards prescribed, milk must contain milk fat of 6 per cent and milk solid non -fat of 9 per cent. It is also not in dispute that the milk seized from the custody of the revisionist, upon being tested, demonstrated that the same contained milk fat 5.6 per cent and milk solid non -fat 8.5 percent. Therefore, in terms of the law, the milk, which was being dealt with by the revisionist, was adulterated. Having had dealt with adulterated product, revisionist was liable to be dealt with under the law prescribed for dealing with the same. On the basis of a complaint lodged, the trial court convicted the revisionist and sentenced him for six months' imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The appellate court refused to interfere. Hence, the present Revision Application. In view of the undisputed facts, referred to above, there is no scope of interference with the conviction, inasmuch as, adulteration stands well established and proved. But, having regard to the fact that the shortage was minimal, in exercise of discretion, this Court reduces the sentence from six months to three months taking into account the proviso to Section 16(1) of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, inasmuch as, the case herein falls within Sub -clause (m) of Clause (ia) of Section 2 of the said Act and the adulterated food, in the instant case, being 'primary food' as defined in Sub -section (xiia) of Section 2 of the Act.
(2.) REVISIONIST is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The Revision Application, accordingly, stands disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court below, along with the Lower Court Records, for compliance.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.