- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri S. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AG. A for State.
(2.) REVISIONIST was convicted by the trial Court, Special Judge (Economic Offences) Kairana, Muzaffarnagar Judicial Magistrate, First class under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine he further undergo R. I. for 3 months. Appeal preferred by him failed and the judgment and order of the trial Court was maintained. The present revision is pressed on the ground of sentence only. Sample of vegetable oil was taken from the revisionist which was found to be deficient in Vitamin A content. It is contended that admittedly Vitamin A contents are not stable and according to the rules Vitamin A content should be 25% at the time of taking. The revisionist was a retail dealer and by lapse of time some loss in Vitamin A content is bound to occur. It is also contended that the revisionist has already suffered imprisonment for about four and a half months and he is now more than 60 years. It would not be expedient to send him to jail after lapse of about 13 years. The appeal was decided by the appellate Court on 1-10-83. The revisionist was allowed to be released on bail by this Court vide order, dated 10-2-84 meaning thereby that he remained in jail from 1-10-83 to 10-2-84 and sometime thereafter till he was actually released on bail in pursuance to the order of bail granted by this Court. Record further shows that the age of the revisionist was 45 years on 10-5-82. He must now be 60 years. Considering all these facts and circumstances as also the fact that no useful purpose shall be served by sending the revisionist to jail after expiry of 14 years, in view of proviso (1) to Section 16 of sub-clause (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which provides that for adequate and special reasons sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to 3 months, in my view the period of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 1,000 would meet the ends of justice. The revision is, therefore, partly allowed. Conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the P. P. A Act is upheld. Sentence of imprisonment is, however, reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The revisionist shall deposit the amount of fine within two months from the date of order if has not already been deposited by him. In case of default in payment of fine he shall further undergo imprisonment for the period of six weeks. Revision allowed. .;