- (1.) These four criminal revisions raise common question of law which is whether in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as amended by Amending Act No. 34 of 1976 lesser punishment can be awarded by the Courts if the accused has been deprived of his rights to have a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all these revisions are being disposed of by common judgment.
(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 120 of 1983 the facts are that the revisionist was convicted by the trial court under Sections 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and pay a fine of Rs. 1500.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-7-82 passed by the trial Court, the appellate Court affirmed the findings of guilt against the appellant but modified the order of sentence and he was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for three months.
(3.) The facts on which the revisionist was convicted were that on 12-7-80 he was found selling mustard oil. The Food Inspector had taken 375 grams of sample and had completed the formalities. The sample was sent for analysis by the Public Analyst and in his report dated 16-8-80 the Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 8.32 percent of Tisi oil and, therefore, it was adulterated. The plea of the accused was that no notice under Section 13(2) along with the report of the Public Analyst was served upon him. He did not sell any oil to the Food Inspector and the receipt and papers on which his signatures were obtained were blank. The premises consisted of oil mill, flour mill etc. The Food Inspector had taken sample from the crushed oil of one of the customers. The trial Court had found that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector and the receipt and other documents contained signatures of the accused and that there was proper compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The appellate Court affirmed these findings.;