K. P. S. Sandhu, J. - (1.) The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Sec. I6(I)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Kaithal, vide his order dated 24th Feb., 1933. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were maintained by the lower appellate Court vide its order dated 9th Sept., 1983.
(2.) On the last date of hearing notice regarding sentence was given.
(3.) Mr. H. N. Mchtani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is a first offender and that the total ash content in the sample of haldi taken in his case was only marginally higher than the permissible quantity, i e., the total ash content found in the haldi is 9.25 per cent as against permissible limit of 9 per cent. He has placed reliance on unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 8-DBA of 1981 State of Haryana Vs. Madan Lal rendered on 10th Jan., 1983, where the deficiency found in the milk was marginal. Instead of being awarded the minimum sentence prescribed under the law; the respondent in that case was let off with a lesser penalty. I think that in this case also the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced from six months to three months and that of fine is reduced from Rs. 1,090 to Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months.;