- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-1-86 passed by I Additional Ses sions Judge, Bijnor dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-5-84 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Bijnor convicting the revisionist for offence punish able under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to fine of Rs. 1000.
(2.) DESPITE the list being revised, none appeared to press this revision. Sri VA. Ansari has sent illness slip. In view of earlier adjournments it was directed that no further adjournment will be granted. DESPITE this observation the learned Counsel has again sent illness slip. In view of these facts the revision is being disposed of on merits after perusing the record with the help of learned A. G. A. On consideral ion of the entire facts and circumstances and the memo of revision I do not find any error as far as conviction is concerned. However, it is fit case in which ends of justice require that the accused may not be sent to jail. The adulteration was made about 20 years before in September, 1980. The revision has remained pending since 1986. These facts require that the sentence of imprisonment may be altered to the sentence of im prisonment already undergone and to fine. In terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1996 SCC (Criminal) 79, followed by this Bench in Criminal Revision No. 2100 of 1984, Sohan Singh alias Swam Singh v. State of UP, I modify the sentence awarded as under:
(3.) CONSIDERING the nature of the ac cusation and also the fact that the offence had taken long before I find it a fit case to award simple imprisonment and, there fore, 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 milk being adulterated and Rs. 1000 includ ing 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 con cerned 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 formalise the commuta tion in terms of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above.;