- (1.) The petitioner by way of present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has assailed the impugned judgment dated 31.10.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter "the Appellate Court") in criminal Appeal No.35/1998 whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed by the petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment dated 02.01.1998, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short "the trial court") in Cr. Original Case No.220/1993 whereby the trial court convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the PFA Act') and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to undergone three months' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition are that on 10.09.1992, Food Inspector one Ram Gopal inspected the shop of the petitioner and took sample of 'Haldi' in three separate bottles and sent the samples to the Public Analyst at Sri Ganganagar. Upon receiving the report, 'Haldi' was found to be adulterated. Sanction was obtained from the competent authority and challan was filed before the learned trial court for offence punishable under Section 7/16 of PFA Act. The learned trial Court framed charge against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 02.01.1998, convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(A)(i) of PFA Act and passed the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the trial court further ordered that the petitioner shall undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, accused-petitioner approached the learned appellate Court but the appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 31.10.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.K. Garg, submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 (1)(A)(i) of PFA Act recorded by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court but his only prayer is for issuance of direction to the State Government to consider case of the petitioner for commutation of sentence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and therefore, his case for commutation of sentence can very well be considered by the Government under Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. In support of this plea, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court in the case of N.Sukumaran Nair V/s. Food Inspector, Mavelikara [1995 SC CANDID 80], Deva V/s. State of Rajasthan, 2015 2 RajLW 1002 and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 596/1997 (Joga Ram Vs. State of Raj.) decided on 21.03.2014 Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dayal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2004 5 SCC 721 and submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair cannot be treated as precedent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.;