HARBANS SINGH RAI,J - (1.) BACHAN Ram, petitioner, was convicted by Shri HR. Nauhria, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his order dated 7th February, 1986. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this revision.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 19th November, 1981, Gurdial Singh, Food Inspector, intercepted Bachna Ram at 7.40 a.m. at Patiala-Sirhind Road, Near Industrial Estate, Patiala. At that time, the petitioner was carrying 25 kgs. of cow milk for sale. Sample of the milk was taken and sent to Public Analyst Punjab for analysis who reported that the sample milk contained milk fat 4.5% and milk solid not fat 7.1% and that it was deficient in milk solids not fat by 16% of the minimum prescribed; although the milk fat was in excess thereof. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner has suffered the agony of trial for the last about eight years. The sample report shows that the milk fat found is in excess of the minimum prescribed standard, although the milk solids not fat are slightly deficient than the minimum prescribed standard. Thus, the adulteration is marginal.
(3.) IN somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 184 : AIR 1988 SC 1789 held that it was not appropriate that the accused must complete the whole sentence. Their Lordships observed : "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 has 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 by 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." Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence is reduced to the one already undergone. The petition is dismissed with this modification in the order of sentence. Petition dismissed.;