- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Heard Sri Krish na Kapoor and perused the judgments of both the courts below.
(2.) CONCURRENT finding based on evidence has been recorded by both the courts below and I agree with their ap preciation of evidence. No objection can be taken thereto. Sri Krishna Kapoor lastly argued that the sentence should be further minimized. But I think it is not legally permis sible. Under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the punishment should not be less than 6 months. The other provisions do not con tain any leniency to the accused found guilty on the charges under Section 16 (l) (c) of the Act. Therefore, question of further curtailing the sentence is not legal ly permissible. The learned trial Court has found the accused guilty on two counts and has ordered the sentence to run conseuetively. The learned 1st appellate -court reduced the sentence. Not only this, he has ordered both the sentences to run concur rently. No further leniency is permissible. The revision has no force. It is, accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;