- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. P. N. Lal learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. The revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in Criminal Case No. 387 of 1982 PS. Jaspur, District Nainital. The incident is dated 8-9-1982 when the sample of milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the shop of the revisionist and on analysis the sample was found adulterated by the Public Analyst who reported 4% and 10% deficiency in the fatty and non-fatty solids.
(2.) MR. Lal has placed the lower appel late Court judgment to convince the Court that the petitioner is a tea vendor and so he should not be convicted for selling adul terated milk. However, the learned A. G. A. has very successfully asserted that the finding of the Courts below is concurrent that the revisionist is not only a tea vendor rather he has licence to sell the milk as well tea and break fast materials. The conviction of the revisionist in the light of the finding of the Public Analyst who scientifically examined the sample of milk purchased from the revisionist's shop by the Food Inspector. This Court does not find any latches in the conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, the revision petition against the conviction of the revisionist has no merit.
(3.) HOWEVER, Mr. Lal points out that the sentence of one year's rigorous im prisonment awarded to the revisionist is much excessive considering the nature of the deficiency noted by the Public Analyst in the sample of milk. This Court has care fully perused the reasons given in the im pugned judgment. The minimum sentence provided under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is only six months. No specific reason has been noted by the Courts below for awarding the sen tence of one year rigorous imprisonment to the revisionist besides a sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000. The quantum of deficiency noted by the Public Analyst in the sample of milk and the discussions made in the impugned judgment, give good ground for inter ference in the order of sentence. The revisionist has already remained in jail custody for more than a month. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of on the following terms. The sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment is reduced and modified to the period al ready undergone by the revisionist. The revisionist is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The revisionist is directed to surrender before the Court of C. J. M. Nainilal and deposit the fine within three months from today. Revision disposed of. .;