- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Murlid har learned senior counsel for the revisionists and Mr. A. K. Varma, learned A. G. A. Mr. Murlidhar does not press the revision petition against the conviction of the revisionists for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (A) (i) of the Preven tion of Food Adulteration Act. According ly the conviction of the revisionists is upheld.
(2.) MR. Murlidhar presses the revision petition against the substantive sentence of six months awarded to the revisionists for the same offence on the ground that more than 18 years have elapsed since the alleged sample was taken from the seller which was analysed and found short of required standard sodium chloride. The revisionists are manufacturers who dis close their identity on the sealed salt pack et and on the basis of the same identity they were caught and prosecuted in this case. The arguments of MR. Murlidhar is that basically and primarily the offence is of technical nature and there is at best an ingredient of financial gain and not inten tion to harm the public health had been alleged nor any substance to injure the public health has been found by the Public Analyst. On the basis of MR. Murlidhar argues that sending the revisionists to six months rigorous imprisonment is not going to serve any purpose of law or justice rather it will harm the human body. Ac cording to him the suitable sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice in this nature of case. He has taken help of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1997) 9scc101. Learned A. G. A. has nothing to argue against the arguments advanced by Mr. Murlidhar. This Court finds force in the sub mission of Mr. Murlidhar. After going through the Public Analyst's report con tained in lower Court's record which is before this Court and the discussions made by the trial Magistrate as well as by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar-nagar in the impugned judgment that there was no substance which can be seen as injurious to public health. Of course the required standard was not found which also affects the consumers adversely but the intention cannot be seen in the manufacturer to cause any injury; at best his technical knowledge may be faulted.
(3.) THE nature of offence alleged and the material available on record justify the argument of Mr. Murlidhar. Since more than nineteen years have passed. In the circumstances the sen tence of six months' rigorous imprison ment is reduced to the period already un dergone and the revisionists are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) each and in default six months' R. I. The amount already deposited by the revisionists as sentence of fine will be ad justed. Sentence modified. .;