- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-4-84 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh dismissing the appeal preferred against the order dated 20-12-83 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.) SRI Samit Jain, the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that thesanc-tion for prosecution was accorded without application of mind; there was non-compliance of Sections 10 (7) and 13 (2) of the Act; the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not complied with despite the alleged adulteration the coriander was not unfit for human consumption; the revisionist was entitled to be released on probation. All these arguments advanced were considered at length by the Courts below and were rightly rejected. There is no merit in the revision so far as the convic tion is concerned. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the alleged adulteration was detected in the year 1980 and after more than 18 years, it would not be proper to send the accused to jail, more so when he had spent few days in the jail and the revision which was filed in the year 1984 could not be decided till today for no fault of the revisionist.
(3.) IN view of the facts and circumstan ces of the case that the alleged adulteration was made in the year 1980 it would not be proper to send the accused to jailafter such a long time; more so when he had served at least few days' sentence after his convic tion. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v, K. Rajeshwar Rao, (1992) 1 SCC 365, aftered the sentence of imprisonment to sentence of fine on the ground that 15 years had passed by from the date of of fence and at this distance of time the ends of justice may not be served by sending the respondent to imprisonment. It is suffice that he has undergone all these years the agony of the prosecution. The offence in the case before the Supreme Court had occurred on March 13, 1976 before the Amending Act came into fore. The Supreme Court observed that under the un-amended Act it was not man datory to impose the minimum sentence. This decisions, therefore, not applicable to the offences which occurred after the Amending Act came into force. Since the legislation has done away with the discretion of the Courts to award either sentence of imprisonment or fine and minimum sentence has been prescribed, the Courts have been left with no discretion but to award minimum or more up to maximum limit prescribed. In my opinion, if the legis lation requires that on an offence being proved minimum sentence of imprison ment has to be awarded the Courts cannot overlook the legislative mandate and award sentence of fine only though on equity it may feel justify to take lenient view. However, Courts can convert sen tence of rigorous imprisonment into sen tence of simple imprisonment.;