AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P.S. Sandhu, J.
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000 in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the trial Magistrate. His conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 27th August, 1983.
On the last date of hearing notice regarding sentence was given.
Mr. Ujagar Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the alleged article of food which the petitioner had kept for sale laddus and according to the report of the Public Analyst, the colouring material used in laddus was not in conformity with the one prescribed although the same was not found injurious to health. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not a previous convict and is a petty shopkeeper and his case covered by the proviso to section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which reads as under :
"Provided that
(i) if the offence is under subclause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency or is with respect to an article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of subclause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2; or
(ii) if the offence is under subclause (ii) of clause (a), but not being an offence with respect to the contravention of any rule made under clause (a) or clause (g) of subsection (1A) of Section 23 or under clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 24,
the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees........."
In view of the fact that the petitioner is not a previous convict and that the colouring material used by the petitioner was no injurious to health, it is a fit case where the petitioner should be dealt with under the above quoted proviso to section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consequently, I reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to three months and a fine from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 500, in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month. With this modification the petition fails and is dismissed.