A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Hence the present revision petition.
(2.) The only point urged by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that R.I. 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has not been complied with. He relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court reported as Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1975 (I) FAC 178 . The authority relied upon by Mr. Jain is overruled by a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jagtar Singli, 1979 PLR 553 : 1981 (I) FAC 67. it is observed by the Division Bench that even if a copy is not supplied within time, the question to be seen is whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused by non-compliance of R.I. 9(j) and it has been held that the R.I. is not mandatory. Accordingly there is no merit in the contention raised by Mr. Jain. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Food Inspector Ram Lal Chawla P.W. 1, Dr. Rajinder Taneja P.W. 2 and Ram Karan P.W. 3. Ram Karan P.W. 3 was declared hostile. Both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of Food Inspector Ram Lal Chawla P.W. 1 and Dr. Rajinder Taneja P.W. 2. They have supported the prosecution version in all its material particulars. Accordingly I do not find that any case is made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) Lastly it was urged that the petitioner is 23 years of age and is a first offender and he may be released on probation. Keeping in view, the age of the petitioner, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months. However, the sentence of fine is maintained.;