- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. This Criminal Revision, under Sections 397 and 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20-8-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit dismissing the appeal of the revisionist-accused, Magister @ Budhpal.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the accused in the morning of 23-11-1979 was found by P. W. 1 Kripal Singh Kambojh, the Food Inspector, selling cow and buffalo mixed milk. On the suspicion about the milk being adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk and did spot formalities of preparing samples of the same for the purpose of its analysis. Three samples were prepared in separate containers. THE documents exhibits KA-1 to KA-3 were also prepared. One of the samples taken was sent to the Public Analyst, Lucknow who after analysis sent his report exhibits KA-4, in which the milk taken from revisionist-accused was found 24% deficient in milk fat and 26% deficient in non fatty solids. After the receipt of this report, the Food Inspector obtained sanction of prosecution from the local Health Authority/chief Medical Officer and the complaint was filed before the Magistrate. The Magistrate concerned charged the revisionist-accused for selling milk without license under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 sub-rule (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and on the second count, the accused was charged for selling adulterated milk punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution examined three witnesses and the defence in his support examined one witness. The learned Magistrate, after having considered the entire material available on record, was of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt for the offence with which the accused- revisionist was charged and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of which the revisionist was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused was further sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 sub-rule (1) of the Food Adulteration Rules with rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of which he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Against this judgment of the trial Court, the appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge who has ultimately decided it by the impugned judgment and the appeal was dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist-accused, Sri V. D. Ojha and also the A. G. A. appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the revisionist instead of placing argument on the merits of the matter about the alleged commission of offences punishable under the relevant provision of the Food Adulteration Act & Rules and consequent sentence awarded against him, he has submitted the case of law of Prem Chand v. State of U. P. , 2002 (44) ACC 808, Roop Chand v. State of U. P. , 2002 (44) ACC 809, and Maqbool Ahmad v. State of U. P. , 2000 (1) JIC 998 (SC): 1999 (39) ACC 758. With the support of aforesaid proposition of law, the learned counsel submits that the alleged offence took place as back as in the year 1979 in relation to which judgment of the trial Court was given in the year 1985 which was confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20-8-1985. This revision was preferred in the year 1985 and since then a period of about 19 years has been elapsed and as such, no purpose would be served by putting the revisionist-accused behind the bars at this juncture of time after 19 years during which period he has all along been on bail granted by this Court in the proceedings of the Criminal Revision.;