S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) SAMPLE of milk taken from the accused-petitioner Ram Lal by the Food Inspector at about 10.000 A.M. of May 31, 1982 was found deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of 6%. On prosecution the learned trial Court convicted him of the commission of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fine vide its judgment recorded on May 8, 1985. Appeal field before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal was dismissed on July 12, 1985. Against the original judgments of the learned trial Court as also of the learned appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge Karnal, the accused-petitioner has filed criminal revision No. 920 of 1985 in this Court.
(2.) I have heard Shri C. B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Singla, Advocate for the State and have carefully gone through the material on the record. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not challenge the conviction. The prayer made by him is for reducing the sentence to already undergone period of 8 days. Harbans Lal v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 171 : 1989(1) CLR 1001 has been cited as authority in support of the contention. Decision therein is said to be based on Supreme Court's decision in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 : AIR 1988 SC 1789, which reads, Coming to the question of sentence, we find that the appellant had been acquitted by the trial Court and the High Court while reversing the judgment of acquittal made by the appellate Judge his not made clear reference to clause (f). The occurrence took place about more than 8 years back. Records show that the appellant has already suffered a part of the imprisonment. We do not find any useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing the remaining period of the Sentence though ordinarily in an anti-social offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the Court should take strict view of such matter." Ordered accordingly.
(3.) EXCEPT for the reduction in sentence as ordered above, criminal revision filed by the accused-petitioner is wholly without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Fine, if realised, would be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner is already on bail by this Court. Bail bond furnished by the surety as also personal bond of the accused-petitioner shall both stand discharged. Petition dismissed.;