GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA, J. - (1.) THIS revision and connected revisions arise against the orders of conviction and sentence imposed on the applicants under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. All these revisions were filed in the High Court long back and to be specific they are of the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. In all these revisions, it has been contended that the applicants do not want to challenge the finding of conviction but want that the sentence of imprisonment for jail term be waived and the sentence awarded to the applicants should be modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone coupled with the fine which has been imposed on them.
(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate objected to this submission made by learned Counsel for the applicants on the ground that under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the minimum sentence prescribed is six months for the type of offences with which these cases are concerned along with a minimum fine of Rs.1,000. It will be proper to quote the relevant provision. "16. Penalties - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1-A), If any person : (a) .................. (b) .................. (c) .................. (d) .................. (e) .................. (f) .................. (g) .................. he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 16, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees." The main contention of Sri S.B. Mathur who has argued Criminal Revision No. 13 of 1983 i.e. the present case, and has also submitted his written argument in the said revision is that the incidents in all these cases had taken place almost 20 years back and the conviction had also been recorded in all these cases almost 15 years back whereafter the applicants had been released on bail. The argument further is that now at this belated stage to send the applicants again back to jail for six months would be too harsh a sentence as over the years these persons are not reported to have committed any fresh offence of the same nature and, therefore, the punishment awarded to them has really resulted in reformation of the applicants. It may be pointed out that the learned Government Advocate has not been able to indicate in any case that any of the applicants were again involved in the commission of similar nature of offence after their conviction by the trial Court.
(3.) BOMBAY High Court in the case of Hari Ram Bali Ram Pandey v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Cr.L.J. 383, observed that passing an order of sentence is a judicial discretion vested in a Court of law which has to be exercised not only with caution but also keeping in view the various circumstances like prolongation of the trial, gravity of the offence, age of the accused, character of the accused and several other circumstances. The Supreme Court has, in the cases of B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, 1973 SCC (Crl.) 796; Balwan and others v. State of Haryana, 1983 SCC (Crl.) 318; Kedar Nath and others v. State of M.P., 1993 SCC (Crl.) 276 and Bansropan Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1983 SCC (Crl.) 183, taken the view that if a person has remained on bail for many years during the pendency of the appeal/revision then instead of sending such a person back to jail in offences which are not of very serious nature his sentence should be modified with the sentence of fine. Viewed in this background it can be said that except in the cases where the act of a person may be brutal, shocking to the conscience or of unusual nature indicating cruelty etc. in other cases which are not punishable with imprisonment for life the Superior Court would be justified in modifying the sentence in a way that instead of sending the applicant to jail the applicant should be asked to pay some fine. The offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, although is an offence against the society, yet cannot be categorised to be an offence of brutal or cruel nature and consequently, it can be examined whether in cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the revisional Court can or cannot modify the sentence of imprisonment despite the fact that the section provides imposition of minimum sentence.;