Manmohan Singh Gujral, J. - (1.) Santa Singh, aged 70 years, was convicted under section 16( I )(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and was sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appeal of the convict was also dismissed by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 8th Feb., 1972, with the modification that the fine was reduced to Rs. 400.00. Being aggrieved, the convict has sought the intervention of this court through this revision petition.
(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 1st March, 1965, Chint Ram, Food Inspector, took a sample of milk in the area of Kot Alma Singh, while the petitioner was carrying 55 litres of unindicated milk. This fact was not challenged during the trial. It was also not challenged that the sample was found to be adulterated, because milk fats were to the extent of 4.8% and non-fatty solids were to the extent of 7.8%, as analysed by the Public Analyst, Chandigarh. The only plea taken by the petitioner during the trial was that the milk was not being carried for sale but for use at the house of Boor Singh of village Bhangli, where akhandpath ceremony was going on. This plea was not accepted by the Courts below and I find no reason to differ from , their findings. No doubt, Des Raj (PWS), who was non-official witness, had admitted that the petitioner had put forth the plea that the milk was being carried in connection with the akhand path, but lam not inclined,to accept this statement, as the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) has denied that any such plea was put forth by the petitioner at that time. There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Chint Ram, Food Inspector, in this connection. Leaving this apart, had there been any truth in the plea, the person at whose residence this milk was to be supplied would have immediately brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities. It emerges from the evidence of Baldev Singh, son of Boor Singh deceased, that the matter was not brought to the notice of higher authorities and no complaint was made about the action of the Food Inspector. I, therefore, find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned courts below.
(3.) The only other question that remains to be considered is about the sentence to be imposed in the case. The accused is more than 70 years old and has been on bail for the last about a year. No useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. I, therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and fine him Rs. 600.00, in default of payment of which he will suffer 6 months R.I. With this modification, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.;