GOPAL KISHAN SHARMA,J. - (1.) THIS revision by petitioner Mangaram is directed against the judgment dated 27th September, 1978, passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar, upholding the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act(in short, here in after, 'the Act)'. The petitioner was sentenced to 6 months' SI and a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' SI.
(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted under Section 7/16 of the Act in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. After the trial he was found guilty of the charge levelled against him, and was sentenced by the learned Magistrate as mentioned above. The petitioner then preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, maintaining the conviction and the sentence under Section 7/16 of the Act. Mr. Rathore did not argue the case on merits. The only point argued by him was regarding taking a lenient view in the matter. He also argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of the year 1974 and at that time, he was carrying business of sweets, and that, during the trial, he left the said business, and at present, for the last so many years, he has not been carrying the business of sweets. The petitioner, after his conviction has remained in jail for 22 days and as the offence is related to the year, 1974, Mr. Rathore argued it would be quite unjust and improper if the petitioner is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the learned lower court, So, it was argued that the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, would meet the ends of justice.
(3.) MR . Pareek opposed this contention and argued that the minimum sentence awarded under the Act is 3 months, and as the matter is of adulteration no lenient view should be taken.;