- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.
(2.) 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, obtain ing 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 solids contents by 26% (percent ). The required quantity of the non-fatty solid in cow's milk is 8. 5%. 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 under Section 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 abovesaid Act were con firmed by learned VIII Additional District 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 in consideration of this revision on the quantum of sen tence. As earlier stated, the sample in this case was taken on 26-5-1979 and the first conviction was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Agra, on 20-10-1984. The appeal of the applicant was dismissed as far back us 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 hear ing in this Court for over 13 years.
(3.) 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 deficien cy is only in non-fatty solids. This deficien cy 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 prosecu tion! It is used as a compassions 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 cir cumstances it will be proper if his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and in lieu thereof as fine of Rs. 5, 000 in addition to the fine imposed by the trial Court is imposed upon the applicant. Ac cordingly, 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 under Section 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 observation made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. He has un dergone a few days sentence.;