JUDGMENT-The applicant before this court was prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of section 7 (1) read with section 2 (1) (L) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, referred to hereinafter as the Act, for having sold or stored for sale Deshi Ghee and Deshi butter in his shop known as M/s Pande Dairy, Gokulpeth, Nagpur. As taking of each sample constituted a distinct offence, two separate cases were instituted by the Food Inspector. However, it appears from the record that both the cases were consolidated and thereafter were dealt with together. According to the prosecution, the accused is conducting a business in various articles of food at his dairy in Gokulpeth at Nagpur. On 26 March 1973, the Food Inspector Mulmule along with the panchas visited the premises of the accused at about 4.00 p.m. He took samples· of Deshi butter and Deshi ghee after following the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. These samples were sent to Public Analyst at Nagpur for test. The Public Analyst vide his reports Exs. 27 and 28 certified that the samples were adulterated and they contained foreign edible fat. Then after taking necessary sanction from the Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, the accused was prosecuted. 2. It appears from the record that in support of its case the prosecution examined the Food Inspector himself, one Dhopte, who accompanied the complainant and acted as a panch and another panch one Namdeo Diwalu Wankhede. Namdeo (P. W.2) was declared hostile. It further appears from the record that during the course of the trial, the accused filed an application under section 13 (2) of the Act for sending the sample with him to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for necessary certificate. Such an application was filed on 15 June" 1974. Vide order dated 15-6-1974 the learned Magistrate directed the accused to deposit the amount for sending the said sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The accused produced the bottle of sample which was with him for this purpose. It was duly verified by the complainant. After due verification the. said bottle was sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. A copy of the memorandum of specimen impression of the seal used in that behalf by the Court was also separately sent by registered post. It was duly verified by the complainant. After due verification the. said bottle was sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. A copy of the memorandum of specimen impression of the seal used in that behalf by the Court was also separately sent by registered post. The Central Food Laboratory after analysis of the sample certified that the ghee as well as the Deshi butter was adulterated. 3. After examining all the evidence on record the learned judicial Magistrate, First Class found the accused guilty for having contravened the provisions, of section 7 (i) read with section 2 (1) (L) of the Act on both the counts and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, that is, for having stored adulterated ghee and butter for sale or for having sold the same. The learned Magistrate further directed that the sentence of imprisonment of one month shall run concurrently. " In default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. It appears from the record that the accused paid the fine. 4. Being aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the accused filed all appeal, which was heard and decided by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The Sessions Judge agreed with the findings recorded by the learned Judicial' Magistrate and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Against this appellate order the present revision application has been filed by the accused. 5. Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant contended before me that the procedure followed by the Food Inspector was contrary to the provisions of Rules namely, Rules Nos. 17 and 18. He further contended that the certificates issued by the Public Analyst, namely, Exs. 27 and 28, and the certificates issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory Exh. 39 and 40 are at variance and clearly indicate that sample which was forwarded to the. Central Food Laboratory for analysis was not the same. Shri Sirpurkar further contended that the Food Inspector purchased about 600 grams of Ghee and butter. Therefore, each sample was of 200 grams which is above the quantity prescribed by Rule 22. 39 and 40 are at variance and clearly indicate that sample which was forwarded to the. Central Food Laboratory for analysis was not the same. Shri Sirpurkar further contended that the Food Inspector purchased about 600 grams of Ghee and butter. Therefore, each sample was of 200 grams which is above the quantity prescribed by Rule 22. Therefore, according to Shri Sirpurkar, Rule 22 of the Rules is also breached and, therefore the sample drawn and the certificates based on the analysis of such a sample cannot be relied upon for the conviction of the accused. Shri Sirpurkar also contended that the examination of the accused conducted by the Judicial Magistrate under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not proper and has, therefore, resulted: ill prejudice to the accused. According to him, the attention of the accused was not drawn towards the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta upon which the conviction of the accused is based. Therefore, he further contended that the conviction of the accused based on such a certificate, which is not put to the accused in his examination under section 342 of the Cr., P.C. is wholly illegal. He further submitted that in any case the sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in this behalf is too severe having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. When the matter came up for hearing before me, as I found that the sentence awarded is less than the minimum prescribed by the Act, a notice for enhancement of sentence was issued. Shri Sirpurkar accepted the notice on behalf of the accused. 7. So far as the first contention raised by Shri Sirpurkar that the Food Inspector has not followed the procedure prescribed by Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules in concerned, in my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. From the bare reading of the deposition of the Food Inspector it is quite clear that he purchased the samples after following the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Then 600 grams butter and ghee purchased by him was divided in 3 equal parts and each part was filled in a dry and clean bottle. The bottles were properly packed and were also duly tied and sealed. Then 600 grams butter and ghee purchased by him was divided in 3 equal parts and each part was filled in a dry and clean bottle. The bottles were properly packed and were also duly tied and sealed. Then labels were pasted on which the description of the article, name of the person from whom it was taken, the date of the sample etc. were written. This label was signed by the Food Inspector as well as the two panchas and the accused. One sealed bottle was handed over to the accused and others were separately sent to the Public Analyst through a peon. These samples were sent separately along with a forwarding letter. The specimen impression of the seal used for sealing these samples was also sent to the Public Analyst separately with a forwarding letter. The witness has produced before the Court the acknowledgments for the same which are Exs. 21 to 24. Therefore, from this evidence, which is not challenged in the cross-examination, it is quite obvious that all the procedure prescribed by Rules 17 and 18 was followed by the Food Inspector. This is further clear fro m the recitals in the certificates issued by the Public Analyst. 8. However, Shri Sirpurkar bas relied upon a decision of this Court in Laxmandas v State of Maharashtra1 wherein it has been held by the Single Judge of this Court that the provisions of Rules] 7 and 18 are mandatory. The said case is obviously distinguishable. The decision in that case was based on an admission on the part of the Inspector which indicated that the memorandum with the specimen impression of the seal were not sent separately. In that case the acknowledgment received from the Public Analyst was also not produced. On the contrary, there was positive admission on the part of the Food Inspector that both the things, which were required to be sent separately, were sent together. In the case before me, in his evidence the Food Inspector has stated that both the things, which were required to be sent separately, were so sent. He has also produced the acknowledgments received from the office of the Public Analyst about the same, which are duly signed by the person authorised in that behalf. From the report of the Public Analyst it is further clear that both the things were separately received. He has also produced the acknowledgments received from the office of the Public Analyst about the same, which are duly signed by the person authorised in that behalf. From the report of the Public Analyst it is further clear that both the things were separately received. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the observations made by the Single Judge of this Court in Laxmandas v State of Maharashtra (cit. supra) cannot help the accused in the present case. It is further pertinent to note that no complaint in this behalf was ever made by the accused either in the trial Court or at the appellate stage. Even in the memo of revision application filed before this Court a ground in that behalf is not taken. This clearly indicates that the point which is taken for the first time at the stage of argument is a result of an afterthought. In this context a reference could usefully be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Kassim Kunju v K. K. Ramakrishna Pillai2 “The only point of any substance which has been pressed before us by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the rules framed under the Act had not been complied inasmuch as it bas not been proved that the specimen impression of the seal used had been sent to the Public Analyst. Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 provides that a copy of the Memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by post. The High Court was not at all impressed with the contention based on Rule 18. It relied on the report of the Public Analyst Exh. P-9 which was in form III as prescribed by the Rules in which it was stated, inter alia, that the Public Analyst has received from the Food Inspector a sample of compounded miskly asafoetida marked No. C. 2/65 for analysis. properly sealed and packed and that he had found the seal intact and unbroken. The contention which was pressed and which has been reiterated before us is that it is nowhere stated in Exh. P-9 that the Public Analyst had compared that specimen impression of the seal with the seal on the packet of the sample. properly sealed and packed and that he had found the seal intact and unbroken. The contention which was pressed and which has been reiterated before us is that it is nowhere stated in Exh. P-9 that the Public Analyst had compared that specimen impression of the seal with the seal on the packet of the sample. The High Court relied on the principle that official acts must be presumed to have been regularly performed. Under Rule 7 the Public Analyst has to compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately on receipt of the packet containing the sample for the analysis. The High Court considered that it must be presumed that the Public Analyst acted in accordance with the Rules and he must have compared the specimen impression received by him with the seal on the container. We do not find any error in the decision of the High Court on the above point. The evidence of the Food Inspector together with the report of the Public Analyst showed that all the requirements of the Rules had been satisfied. At any rate, the question was one of accepting the evidence furnished by the prosecution on the point and the High Court having found on that evidence that tile requirements of the rules had been satisfied there will be hardly any ground left on which this court can interfere," In my opinion these observations will aptly apply to the present case also. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention raised on behalf of the accused. 9. It is no doubt true that rule 22 of the rules framed under the Act prescribes the quantity of sample of food which should be sent to the Public Analyst. As per the specification given in the rule, the sample for ghee and butter should be of approximate quantity of 150 grams. In the present case the quantity which was supplied to the Public Analyst for the analysis was more than the quantity prescribed. It was 200 grams. Though prima facie it appears that there is breach of rule 22, in my opinion, the said technical breach, if any, cannot help the accused. In the present case the quantity which was supplied to the Public Analyst for the analysis was more than the quantity prescribed. It was 200 grams. Though prima facie it appears that there is breach of rule 22, in my opinion, the said technical breach, if any, cannot help the accused. The object of supplying reasonable quantity to the public analyst for analysis is to enable him to conduct the analysis properly and in a given case to conduct more than one test, if necessary. The provision being only a means for securing opinion of Expert the end will not be affected if more quantity was sent for conducting the necessary test. It is worthwhile to note that the different quantities in respect of different articles specified in rule 22 are only approximate quantities. The column specifying the quantity of article in this rule has its heading as "approximate quantity to be supplied." The very fact that the quantity specified is "approximate quantity" indicates that in a given case it could be more than the specified. There is nothing in the rule which prevents the Food Inspector from sending the larger quantity. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules which casts any positive obligation on the Food Inspector to purchase the minimum quantity alone and not a gram more. There is also nothing in the Act or the rule which can be read as a prohibition to send a larger quantity for analysis, if thought necessary. My attention was drawn by Shri Sirpurkar towards the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas v State of Maharashtra.3 From the bare reading of the said decision, it is quite obvious that in that case the quantity supplied for analysis to the Public Analyst was much below the quantity specified by rule 22 of the Rules. Therefore it was held by the Supreme Court that the Public Analyst did not have the quantity mentioned in the rule for analysis. In that context it was observed by the Supreme Court that non-compliance with the quantity to be supplied caused not only infraction of the provisions, but also injustice, as the quantity mentioned in the rule is required for correct analysis and the shortage in the quantity for analysis is not permitted by the Statute. In the case before me, the quantity supplied for analysis was above the quantity mentioned in the rules. In the case before me, the quantity supplied for analysis was above the quantity mentioned in the rules. It was not short of the quantity prescribed by the rule, and therefore, there was no possibility of any injustice. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be said that the Public Analyst did not have the quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis. The public analyst had in his possession more quantity than the quantity mentioned in the Rules for analysis. Therefore, it is obvious that in this case infraction of the Rules, if any, has not caused any injustice to the accused nor has it in any way affected the result of analysis. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the accused regarding infraction of the provisions of rule 22 of the Rules. 10. It was then contended by Shri Sirpurkar that it is apparent from bare reading of the two reports that there was considerable variance in the reports of analysis which clearly indicates that it was not the same sample or the similar sample which was sent to the Central Food Laboratory. In this context Shri Sirpurkar has placed reliance upon certain observations in B. A Samant v. The State of Maharashtra4. After noticing the difference in two reports, in the said decision this Court observed as under: “ The main question in this case in whether the accused can be convicted merely relying on the evidence of the Food Inspector and the report of the Director of central Food Laboratory for holding that the accused sold adulterated Milk. In view of the fact that the Food Inspector did not lead any evidence with regard to the following of the procedure under Rule 14 and did not try to explain how this difference in two reports was caused it will be difficult to convict the accused relying on the evidence of the Food Inspector alone. Further, a doubt is created in accepting his evidence because of the statement of the defence witness, Gopinath, who stated that he did not see the empty bottles. Further, a doubt is created in accepting his evidence because of the statement of the defence witness, Gopinath, who stated that he did not see the empty bottles. As I have stated above, the offences under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are grave ones and before an accused person can be convicted the Court must be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused sold the adulterated article of food. In the present case a grave doubt arises with regard to the way in which the samples were taken by the Food Inspector and if it is not satisfactorily established that the sample that was taken was in a clean and dry bottle, it would be reasonable to doubt whether the sample that was sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory was the article of Food which the accused sold or the article, which was mixed with some water which was already there in the container used. This is not to suggest that the water in the bottle might have been deliberately put in. but it is quite possible that while cleaning those bottles some water remained in them and Rule 14 which required that the bottles should be, clean and dry was Dot complied with. Therefore, in the absence of any reliable evidence on this point led by the prosecution, the prosecution case must fail" In my opinion, these observations also cannot help Shri Sirpurkar. In that case these observations were made by this. Court while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, and in that context this Court found that in the absence of any reliable evidence in that behalf it was not safe to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence of the Food Inspector alone. In the present case we are not concerned with such a controversy. The Food Inspector in his deposition has stated in clear terms that for, taking the samples he has used clean and dry bottles. The evidence of the Food Inspector regarding taking of the samples was not seriously challenged. Further, sample which was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis was taken from the custody of the accused himself. It was a bottle which was given to the accused by the Food Inspector. This bottle was duly sealed before it was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. Further, sample which was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis was taken from the custody of the accused himself. It was a bottle which was given to the accused by the Food Inspector. This bottle was duly sealed before it was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. This clearly indicates that there was no possibility of tampering nor it could be said that the sample bottle which was sent to the Central Food Laboratory was not the same. Therefore, in my opinion mere variance or difference in the two reports cannot help the accused. Under section 13 (3) the Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst. It is the said report which is conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. As already observed, in this case the sample which was in possession of the accused was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory under the seal of the Magistrate. From the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is further clear that it was the same sample which was analysed by him. Therefore, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the accused to say that it cannot be said that it was the same sample which was analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the present case the report of the Public Analyst stands superseded by the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory issued under section 13 (3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the sample which was sent to the Central Food Laboratory was a different one or the certificate issued by the Director in that behalf is not the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. 11. Apart from this, in my opinion, while interpreting the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder we cannot overlook the intention and the object behind the legislation. Adulteration and misbranding of foodstuff is a rampant evil and the statute to control that evil is thus undisputedly in the interest of general public. The Statute is enacted by the Parliament in the interest of public health so as to ensure purity of articles of food supplied to the people and at the same time preventing malpractices by traders in the articles of food. The Statute is enacted by the Parliament in the interest of public health so as to ensure purity of articles of food supplied to the people and at the same time preventing malpractices by traders in the articles of food. As observed by the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association v. Union of India5 the Act deals with the regulation of trades1 and in view of the wide spread mal-practices and the practical difficulty of controlling the mal-practices stringent provisions have been made in the Act. This enactment is a social document meant for the protection of general public. Therefore, while testing the technical contentions raised before me, what must tilt the balance is the purpose of the Statute, its potential frustration and judicial avoidance of mischief by not construing these provisions too technically. The Court cannot construe the provisions too narrowly so as to allow persons within its purview to escape its net. Therefore, the contentions raised before me will have to be tested in this context. The contentions raised are too technical in nature, and it is obvious that if accepted the very purpose of the Legislation will be defeated. 12. From the record it is no doubt true that while examining the accused, under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, these certificates issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory were not put to the accused nor his explanation was sought in that behalf. It cannot be disputed that these certificates are the very basis of the conviction of the accused, they being the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. This is obviously one of the incriminating circumstance on which the prosecution was relying. Therefore, when the accused was examined under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it was the duty of the Court to draw the attention of the accused towards the said incriminating circumstance and seek his explanation. This has been obviously not done. When the accused was examined under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the certificates issued by the Public Analyst vide Exs.- 27 and 28 were put to the accused. In reply to the question put to the accused in that behalf, he stated that he has nothing to say about the reports. However, he clarified that the samples drawn from his shop were not adulterated. In reply to the question put to the accused in that behalf, he stated that he has nothing to say about the reports. However, he clarified that the samples drawn from his shop were not adulterated. A general question then was asked to him as to whether he has to say anything more with regard to his prosecution and he stated that the butter and ghee were not adulterated. Therefore, it is quite clear that though the Certificates issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory were not specifically put to the accused, a general question regarding the same was asked to him. The bottle of sample which was in the custody of, the accused was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The Certificates received from the Central Food Laboratory were placed on record and the accused was aware of these certificates. The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that the accused had knowledge of these certificates. Further, the samples taken from the shop of the accused were found to be adulterated by both the authorities, namely, the Public Analyst as well as the Director of Central Food Laboratbry, though there was some difference in the reading. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, omission, if any, to put a specific question in this behalf could only amount to an irregularity which is curable under section 537, Criminal Procedure Code. It is pertinent to note that no grievance in this behalf was made by the accused either in the trial Court or at the appellate stage. The explanation to section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it very clear that while determining the question as to whether any error, omission or irregularity in any" proceedings under this Code has occasioned injustice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether an objection could and should have been raised at the earlier stage of the proceedings. In any case the objection in this behalf could have been raised at the appellate stage or at least in the memo of revision filed before this Court. Omission to do this clearly indicates that the above said irregularity has not occasioned injustice nor it has caused any prejudice to the accused. 13. In any case the objection in this behalf could have been raised at the appellate stage or at least in the memo of revision filed before this Court. Omission to do this clearly indicates that the above said irregularity has not occasioned injustice nor it has caused any prejudice to the accused. 13. However, it was contended by Shri Sirpurkar that the difference and variance in the two reports called for some explanation or clarification by the prosecution It is no doubt true that there is difference and variance in the two reports, but only because there is variance or difference in the two reports, it cannot be said that the prosecution is obliged to explain it. If the provisions of section] 3 of the Act are read in this context, it is quite clear that a right is conferred upon the accused to challenge the certificate issued by the Public Analyst by following the procedure laid down under sub-section (2) of section 13. 14. From bare reading of the provisions of section 13 as a whole it is quite clear that report of the Public Analyst though admissible in evidence is not made conclusive. Section I3 (2) of the Act confers a right upon the accused to have the sample given to him examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and to obtain a certificate from him on the basis of analysis of that sample. This certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst and is made final and is also treated conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In the very nature of things the possibility of difference or variance in the reports or the reading of analysis of these two different authorities cannot be ruled out. Such a possibility is inherent in the very process contemplated by section 13 of the Act. As a matter of fact a right conferred upon the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act is in substance a right to challenge the report of the Public Analyst and get it superseded by the certificate issued by a wholly disinterested, highly placed officer and an expert, like the Director of Central Food Laboratory. As a matter of fact a right conferred upon the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act is in substance a right to challenge the report of the Public Analyst and get it superseded by the certificate issued by a wholly disinterested, highly placed officer and an expert, like the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Once the identity of the sample is established then the difference and variance in readings is of no consequence and it is the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory which is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no substance in this contention also. 15. This practically disposes of all the contentions raised on behalf of the accused, so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 16. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, as already observed, as I found that the sentence imposed upon the accused is less than the minimum prescribed by the Act, a notice of enhancement was issued. In reply to this notice an affidavit has been filed by the accused before me to-day. 17. As to what will be the adequate sentence must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this context a reference could usefully be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Ramshraya v. State of Madhya Pradesh6 : "In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence the circumstances of its commission the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender, are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by Courts. Trial Courts in this country already over-burdened with work have hardly any time to set apart for sentencing reflection. This aspect is missed or deliberately ignored by the accused lest a possible plea for reduction of sentence may be considered as weakening his defence. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the Courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles." Therefore, the question of sentence will have to be decided having regard to these principles. In a good system of administration of criminal justice pre-sentence investigation may be of great sociological value. Throughout the world humanitarianism is permeating into penology and the Courts are expected to discharge their appropriate roles." Therefore, the question of sentence will have to be decided having regard to these principles. The question of sentence is a matter of judicial discretion subject to the mandatory minimum prescribed by the Act. The accused has stated on oath that he has completely stopped the business of selling curd and milk for last more than 4 months. He has further stated that in his premises only the stationary shop is going on and there is no diary section in the shop. He further stated on oath that he has completely stopped the business of selling milk or any of its bye-products. He has further given an undertaking that he shall not henceforth deal in milk or its products in future. In view of the affidavit now filed before me it is quite clear that it will not be possible for the accused to carryon similar tactics or exploit the customers any further, since he has closed the business itself and has further given an undertaking that he shall not henceforth deal in milk or its products any future. The statements made in the affidavit filed to-day are not disputed by the respondent. It is pertinent to note that the Food Inspector, who is in charge of the prosecution, was present in the Court and was directed to verify the facts stated in the affidavit. On prima facie verification he found that the facts stated therein are correct. The learned Judicial Magistrate also found that for the reasons disclosed in his judgment there are adequate and special reasons for imposing a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed bylaw. It is not the case of the prosecution that any injurious substance was found to be added in the sample. The offence in this case took place in the year 1973. Since then the accused is facing the trial. In the meantime, as stated in the affidavit, the accused closed his business and has further given an undertaking that he will not carry on the same business in future. Having regard to these special facts, in my opinion, it will not be expedient to send the accused, who is a young man, to jail at this stage. In the meantime, as stated in the affidavit, the accused closed his business and has further given an undertaking that he will not carry on the same business in future. Having regard to these special facts, in my opinion, it will not be expedient to send the accused, who is a young man, to jail at this stage. However, I feel that for meeting the ends of justice and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the fine imposed should be enhanced to more than the minimum prescribed by the Act so as to teach a lesson to the accused and at the same time give him an opportunity to improve in his life. Thus, in my opinion, the ends of justice will be amply met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the accused on both the counts is reduced to the simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court on both the counts and the fine is enhanced. 18. In the result, therefore, the substantive jail sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court on both the counts and in addition to this sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the Court, the accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each count. Thus the total fine which the accused is liable to pay amounts to Rs. 4,000. In default of payment of fine, the accused will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count. I am informed that the accused has already paid a fine of Rs- 1,000 imposed on him by the Courts below. The accused is granted one month's time to pay the additional fine. 19. With this modification in the sentence, the revision application fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.