A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) Surta, petitioner, was convicted under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months. He, however, maintained the sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of this revision petition.
(2.) Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not address on merits. He only prays that the offence was committed as far back as the year 1973; that the petitioner is a first offender and the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to that already undergone and instead fine may be enhanced. In Lingappa Shetty Vs. Hubli Darvar Municipal Corporation, 1979 (I) FAC 193 , where the accused had undergone about two weeks' imprisonment for an offence committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sentence was reduced to that already undergone. I have perused the record. The offence was committed on Nov. 12, 1973. The petitioner is a first offender and a young man of about 30 years. No useful purpose will be served to send him back to jail to undergo the unexpired period of his sentence of imprisonment. In my view, ends of justice will be amply met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by him and instead the fine is enhanced to Rs. 25 0.00 or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. It is ordered accordingly.
(3.) Except for the modification indicated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.;