Asghar vs State

P.N. Bakshi, J.—The applicant has been convicted u/s 7/16 of the P.F.A. Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Hence this revision.

I have heard counsel for the applicant and have also carefully perused the impugned order. According to the prosecution case a sample of buffalo milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the accused applicant which he was carrying for sale on a cycle on 20th July 1975 at about 12 noon. The sample was collected and bottled in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials, which was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, disclosed that it was adulterated inasmuch as there was a deficiency of about 3% in fat contents and 26% in non-fatty solids. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above.

Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record and the facts and the circumstances of the case, have come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is conclusively established. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact, recorded concurrently by the subordinate courts to warrant interference in revision.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has been deprived of his right to send the sample for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta inasmuch as the application which he filed u/s 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act was rejected by the trial court. This point was also canvassed before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that even though the application filed by the applicant should not have been rejected on the ground it has been rejected by the trial court, yet since the amount of the fee payable has not been deposited by the applicant prior to the filing of his application u/s 13(2) of the Act the application was liable to be rejected.

Counsel for the applicant has submitted that it was not necessary for the applicant to have deposited the fee prior to his making the aforesaid application. This matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, . In this decision while considering the applicability of Section 13(2) of the Act their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:

The last point argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant is the question of sentence. He has submitted that adulteration in the instant case is not very heavy. It is 2% in fat contents and 26% in non-fatty solids. He has also argued that the incident in question had taken place prior to the amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 34 of 1976). He has also submitted that the applicant is not a previous convict. Offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act cannot be treated very lightly, since they are deterimental to the health of the community. But having regard to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served by giving some relief to the applicant.

While maintaining the conviction of the applicant for the offence u/s 7/16 of the P.F.A., Act, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant from six months R.I. to four months R.I. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs. 1000/-to 500/-only. The applicant shall be taken into custody forthwith.