G.S.N. Tripathf, J.@mdashThis criminal revision has been filed by the accused u/s 397 of the Cr. P.C. with a prayer that the Judgment and order passed by the Courts below, be set aside.
2. The undisputed facts as stated in the judgments of both the Courts below are these: On 23.10.86 at about 11.30 a.m. at the place 254. Sohbatiyabagh. P. S. George Town, Allahabad, the Food Inspector Sri Chandrika Singh went to the shop of the accused, where out of other things, Dal of Arhar was being sold and exposed for sale. The Food Inspector suspected adulteration in the same and purchased 750 Cms. of Arhar Dal and paid Rs. 5.25 paisa as its price. Thereafter, he completed the legal formalities and sent the sample to the Public Analyst : who in his report dated 18.11.86 observed that Arhar Dal was adulterated and it contained 2% of Khesari Doi, which is prohibited. Secondly, the sample content showed that the prohibited type of colour was used for colouring the property in dispute. Thereafter, after obtaining the permission from the authority concerned, the complaint was lodged.
3. The prosecution examined the complainant Sri Chandrika Prasad and one of his co-worker in the same office and proved all the technical requirements and documents on the record. The accused denied the allegations and stated that he had been Implicated falsely. After analysis of the entire evidence, the learned trial court found the accused guilty of the charge u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and ordered him to undergo 2 years'' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 on failure to pay the fine, additional one months'' R.I. was awarded.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an Appeal No. 3 of 1997, Sushil Kumar v. State of U.P., which was heard and decided by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence vide his order dated 1.9.97, which too has been impugned along with the order passed by the learned trial court supra. Hence this revision.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the judgments of the Courts below. I find that there is no force in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed. However, since the offence took place about more than 10 years earlier, a lenient view should be taken in awarding the sentence.
6. The only point pressed by the learned counsel is that the sentence Is very severe. Although, lightly and half-heartedly he tried to impugn the finding on other points, including, legal and technical, rules, but he could not succeed in doing that. His entire emphasis was that the Public witnesses were not associated with this activity of the Food Inspector. But this point has been met by both the Courts below.
7. Both the Courts below have held that public witnesses on the spot did not co-operate with the Food Inspector while he was taking the sample or preparing the documents thereafter. Therefore, the Food Inspector was compelled to call upon his colleague as a witness to prove the entire prosecution case, including the papers and documents. The law on this point is well-settled and has been rightly applied by the Courts below. Therefore, this point has no force. It is rejected.
8. However, the arguments on the point of reducing the sentence subsists. The crime took place on 23.10.86 and ever since the accused has been undergoing mental botheration and trouble as the sword of domicile has been hanging upon him since the year 1986. Not only this, there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused is a habitual criminal or was prosecuted even earlier.
9. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I find that the sentence passed by the learned trial court, deserves to be softened.
10. The revision is dismissed substantially and the order of conviction is upheld, as it has no force. However, the sentence awarded by the Courts below is modified to this extent that instead of undergoing 2 years'' R.I. and paying a fine of Rs. 3,000, the revisionist shall undergo only one years'' R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 only. On failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo additional one months'' R.I. The accused shall positively surrender before the learned trial court within a week from today, falling which the learned trial court shall get him arrested by issuing a non-bailable warrant and send him to Jail to serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. He shall, thereafter, submit the compliance report to this Court without any fall.
