- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jokhan Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A.
(2.) MR. Prasad does not press the revision petition against finding of convic tion of the revisioninst under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Ac cordingly the conviction recorded against the revisionist under Section 7/16, Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act, by the judgment and order passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1984. Judgment dated 21-7-1984, is upheld and confirmed. Mr. Prasad pressed the revision petition against the quantum of substan tive sentence of six months R. I. awarded to the revisionist under Section 7/16, Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that the occurrence is about 18 years old and the alleged adulteration reported by the public analyst does not allege that any substance injurious to the human health, was found adulteraied. Only sub- standard "jira" has been reported by the public analyst with the 0. 8 adulteration of foreign materials. Mr. Prasad argued that no doubt, it is economic offence with the profit motive so if suitable sentence of fine is awarded in lieu of substantive sentence of imprison ment, it will serve the interest of justice. Mr. A. K. Verma, learned A. G. A. does not controvert this submission of Mr. Prasad.
(3.) THE record speaks that revisionist has already remained in Jail custody towards sentence of six months R. I. for about two and half months. The revision petition is partly al lowed against the terms of sentence. The sentence of six months R. I. is modified and reduced to the period already undergone. The revisionist is to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- which will be over and above the amount of fine awarded to the revisionist by the Court below with Rs. 1,000.;