@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.C. Sharma, J.@mdashThis Cr. Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C., by the petitioner against the judgment dated 21-6-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4-3-2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 23/198/2005 whereby the accused petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:--
"U/S. 7(III)/ 16(1)(A)(1) R/W S. 50 of the P.F.A. Act; one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further 03 days additional simple imprisonment.
"U/S. 7(I)/ 16(1)(A)(1) of PFA Act; 06 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 15 days additional simple imprisonment."
Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 16-7-1996 the complainant Kunj Bihari Bhardwaj, Food Inspector submitted a complaint in the Court of learned ACJM No. 2, Alwar, stating therein that the complainant is the Food Inspector, appointed by the State Government, on 13-4-1996 at about 8.30 a.m. reached at Ambedkar Chauraha, Alwar, there he met with the accused who was having two iron tanks containing 50 liters of milk for the purpose of selling on a Rajdoot Motorcycle. The complainant asked for the license from the accused petitioner of selling milk, the accused was not possessing the said license. On making inspection, in one tank, containing 28 liters milk, seems to be adulterated.
2. On which, an information was given to the accused petitioner in the Form No. 6 for taking the sample and after duly mixing the milk, 750 grams milk was purchased in a sum of Rs. 7.50 and the sample was taken and further proceedings were initiated against the accused and in the report, the milk was found to be adulterated. On which prosecution sanction was taken from the competent Officer. Thus, the accused petitioner has committed offence u/s. 7/ 16 of the P.F.A. Act.
3. On submitting the complaint, pre-charge evidence was taken. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, framed the charge against the accused petitioner. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and after completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution case. The trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, who had confirmed the said order of conviction and sentence.
5. Hence, this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the judgments passed by the Courts-below, are totally illegal and perverse. He has further contended that the trial Court has not properly considered and appreciated the evidence made available on record. He has also contended that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the accused petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the judgments passed by the Court-below, in the circumstances of the case, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Lastly, he has contended that the incident took place on 16-7-1996 and almost 18 years have already elapsed from today and the accused petitioner did suffer mental agony, which is more than conviction and this is his first offence and the petitioner is not a habitual offender. Hence, he may be released on probation if he is not acquitted or on the period already undergone by him as he has remained in judicial custody for about 11 days.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has also contended that it is a well proved case of the prosecution and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for committing offence of adulteration of milk, therefore, the petitioner should not be released on probation or on the period already undergone by him. He has also submitted that the petitioner should be sent to jail for serving the remaining sentence as ordered by the trial Court. He has again contended that no interference is required by this Court in the judgments passed by the Court below.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgments passed by the learned Court below, and also the material on record. My attention has been drawn towards the case of
9. The offence took place in the year 1996. The accused petitioner has been awarded the imprisonment as indicated above. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Cr.P.C., the appropriate Government is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine.
10. I think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade had gone by. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders; under clause (d) of Section 433 of Cr.P.C. Till then the petitioner will remain on same bail bonds. With these observations, the criminal revision petition is disposed of.
