- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri P. N. Lal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. representing State of U. P.
(2.) REVISIONIST, Bundan was convicted under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for the months vide judgment and order, dated 16- 9-1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1982 preferred against the judgment and order of conviction was unsuccessful. Hence, this revision. The judgment and order of the Courts below are challenged on the ground that more than required quantity of formaline was added to the sample of milk and the Courts below erred in holding that the milk was meant for sale and no sample was taken from the revisionist and finding of the Courts below are against the weight of evidence on record. Lastly it is contended that the offence is said to have been committed 17 years back. There is no other conviction to the credit of the revisionist and his normal life may be disturbed in case he is sent to jail after lapse of 17 years. It is contended that the sentence of imprisonment maybe converted to sentence of fine. So far as the question that no sample was taken and the milk was not meant for sale is concerned, there are concurrent findings of the Court below, for which cogent reasons have been given. No interference is called for as the finding of the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse. The Courts below also referred the contention of the revisionist that adding of more drops of formaline than required by the rules, did not cause any prejudice to the revisionist. Before this Court also it could not be shown that excess drops of formaline could adversely affect the result of the test. There is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) AS regards the question of sentence, learned A. G. A. argued that minimum sentence is provided under Section 16 (1) of the P. F. A. Act and the Court below awarded minimum sentence. Sub- section (1) of Section 16 provides minimum sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 1000. Under proviso (1) of Section 16 (1) the court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose sentence of imprisonment which shall not be less than three months and fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500. Thus minimum sentence as has been provided under Section 16 is normally six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 and in special cases for adequate and special reasons minimum sentence of imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500 can be awarded by the Court. When the statute provides minimum sentence that can be imposed by the Court, the Court has no discretion in the matter of award of sentence prescribing the minimum limit. To persuade this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist has cited two cases decided by brother R. K. Singh, J. in Criminal Revision No. 1466 of 1983 Bhageloo v. State of U. P. , decided on 19-3-1996 : 1996 JIC 676 (All) and Criminal revision No. 2280 of 1982 Bachchi Lal v. State of U. P. , decided on 18-12-1995. In both the cases sentence of imprisonment was reduced to a period already undergone which was less than three months. With great respect to the view taken in the said decisions, it may be pointed that question whether the Court has discretion to impose punishment of imprisonment and fine less than the minimum limit provided by the statute was not considered. In my view the Court has no such discretion. Hence the minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine provided under the statute has to be awarded after conviction is upheld. The revision, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of the Courts below are affirmed. Revisionist shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Stay order dated 1-2-1983 is vacated. Revision dismissed. .;