P.N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/- by the Magistrate. The Food Inspector filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, which was allowed. The conviction of the accused was confirmed and the sentence was enhanced from Rs. 25/- to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Hence this revision.
(2.) According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector inspected the shop of Thakur Prasad and Lachman Prasad. He found Panna Lal son of Lachinan Prasad in possession of Catechu (Kathha) which was exposed for sale. He purchased a sample of Catechu powder which was sent for analysis. The sample was found adulterated. Panna Lal was, therefore, prosecuted. He pleaded guilty to the offence. The Magistrate, therefore, convicted him and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 25/- only being of opinion that this was his first offence and the accused was a poor man. The Sessions Judge took the view that the minimum sentence that could be awarded under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He has, therefore, altered the sentence.
(3.) Learned counsel contends that the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to allow the revision. The procedure to be followed, by the Sessions Judge should have been governed by the old Code of Criminal Procedure, which only authorised the Sessions Judge to make a reference to the High Court. He could not himself allow the revision and enhance the sentence. I am inclined to agree with this submission. A Division Bench of our court has already clarified the legal position that even in revision filed after the coming into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedure applicable under the old Code will apply to those proceedings which were already pending on the date of the enforcement of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with this submission made by the applicant's counsel that the Sessions Judge has no power to allow the revision and to enhance the sentence. I accordingly allow this revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad dated 24th July, 1774. It would not be in the interest of justice now to interfere with the sentence awarded to the applicant after a lapse of 5 years. More so when the conduct of the applicant has been frank and he has admitted his guilt which implies that he is penitent and would not repeat such offences in future. This revision application is accordingly allowed in terms mentioned above. Revision allowed.;