The High Court confirmed the conviction of the revisionist for supplying adulterated milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Court subsequently reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, directing him to pay a fine.
Conviction confirmed. Sentence reduced to the period already undergone. Fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1797 of 1988
Revisionist :- Rajdev Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist the Court today, the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.12.1988 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1987 (Rajdev v. State and others), dismissing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 03.08.1987 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. Vide impugned order dated 03.08.1987, learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur convicted and sentenced the revisionist as follows :-
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)/16(1)(A) (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 7(5)/16(1)(A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
It was further directed that in case of default in payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of two months had to be undergone.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Vide order of appellate court dated 09.12.1988, the revisionist was convicted under Section 7/16(1)(A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months had to be undergone.
As per prosecution version, the revisionist was arrested by Food Inspector, Ghazipur on 30.11.1983 at about 08.00 A.M. and 15 litres of adulterated buffalo milk was recovered from his possession. On inspection, it was found that the said milk contained about 15 per cent of less fat and about 8 per cent of less fatty solids, which is below standard. The prosecution witnesses have proved the said recovery and from the report of Food Inspector, it was proved that recovered milk was of below standard.
From the perusal of judgment of Special Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur and that of the appellate court, I find no illegality in the well-reasoned and well-observed judgment of the courts below.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further contended that the revisionist is in judicial custody since 04.11.2017 and he has spend about five months' rigorous imprisonment in compliance of the impugned order of the appellate court. Recovered adulterated milk was primary food which was adulterated by human agency. According to proviso of Section 16(1)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 sentence of the revisionist may be reduced to three months.
Ends of justice would meet if the sentence of revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the conviction of revisionist under Section 7/16(1) (A)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is confirmed. However, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
The revisionist is directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, he shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
After depositing fine, the revisionist shall be released forthwith.
Accordingly, the instant revision stands disposed of.
Certified copies of this order be send to the courts below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 5.4.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 should be upheld?
Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajdev
State
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Batabyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
