K.S. Sidu, J. - (1.) This petition of revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the sentence as inadequate aid praying for enhancement of the sentence. The petition has been filed by the complainant and not by the State. It appears that the State of Rajasthan is not interested in the enhancement of sentence.
(2.) After going through the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I find that he convicted the accused respondent under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 only or in default to undergo R. I. for three months. The learned Magistrate has given good reasons for not awarding sentence of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Mr. Keshote argues that it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to pass a sentence, both of imprisonment as well as fine and that in doing so he could have awarded sentence of imprisonment for a period of less than six months and fine of amount less than Rs. 1,000/- Mr. Keshote cited a single Bench ruling of this court in support of his contention. I do not propose to go into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate was competent or not competent to award a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 in the facts and circumstances of this case. Suffice it to say that 1 do not want to enhance the sentence at the instance of that complainant in the facts of this case, especially so when the State is not interested in the enhancement.
(3.) The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.;