G.M. LODHA, J. Protective umbrella for preventing punitive punishment under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by plea of food stuffs meant for animals, whether genuine or result of ingenuity of human intelligence to exploit animals and human-beings together, is the pivot of legal debate in these two criminal prosecutions. 2. Prevention of prosecutions and implementation and enforcement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by vested interests, who do trafficking in human life for minting money, whether should be prevented by exploding such defences of ingenuity, trickery, is another facet of the present prosecutions, where the same petitioner is facing three prosecutions, for adulteration in three different varieties of food stuffs, on the same shop, as alleged by Mr. Tibrewal. 3. Whether man who is termed as "most intelligent animal" by some philosophers, should be allowed to exploit animals silence and helplessness of non-contesting, non-protesting and non-speaking, by taking defence in their name, is yet another new dimension of the novel defences, a dimension on which I would restrain myself from divulging and elucidating, any more as a Judge. 4. Honey for Scorpean bite treatment and Ajwayan for animals is the defence in two prosecutions in which adulteration is not under challenge. Whether the defence is much more adulterated than the food stuff is the new horizon, of adulteration in this ever increasing social crime of serious magnitude. 5. Honey for scorpean bits or accused biting human beings, as Scorpean, for minting money out of Honey, is the real controversy. 6. Prosecution for adulteration with adulterated defence, whether means adulteration is adulteration, is yet another new facet of this device which is becoming as common as plea of alibi in other criminal cases. 7. Criminology of social crimes and such defences whether extension or aggravation of criminology, should be a subject of serious research. 8. And now the traditional facts for dealing the two revisions separately. 9. Let me deal with conviction about adulteration in Ajwayan first. 10. Petitioner Chhagan Lal has filed this revision petition against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 101/81 maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar vide his judgment in criminal case No. 55/81. However, the sentence has been reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 11. The second revision petition No. 266/82, arising out of Honey adulteration would be dealt with separately, 12. The petitioner is a shop-keeper in the town of Khandela in district Sikar. Food Inspector, Roopram took sample of Ajwayan from the petitioner. Ajwayan was found adulterated by the Public Analyst as it did not confirm to the prescribed standard. 13. Before this Court as well as the lower court, the plea which has been taken by the accused and on which detailed arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that Ajwayan sample of which was taken from the petitioner was not meant for human consumption, but it was meant for consumption of animals. 14. Both the lower courts have considered this aspect of the case. The accused in support of his plea examined DW1 Babulal and DW 2 Ramcharan to support his contention that Ajwayan which was purchased by the Food Inspector was meant for consumption of animals and was not meant for Reliance was also placed on the receipt Ex. P.2 in which this effect. 15. Mr. Tiberwal submitted that once the receipt itself contains a note to the effect that the article of food purchased by the Food Inspector is meant for consumption of cattle and two witnesses have been produced in support of that, it was enough as a plausible defence and in a criminal case where the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal, Reliance was placed by Mr. Tibrewal on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State V. Gulab Chand (1) where an appeal against acquittal for an offence for selling adulterated Gur was dismissed by the High Court. 16. Since the purchase of Ajwayan and the fact that it was the accused from whom it was purchased, and that it was found to be adulterated is not in doubt or dispute, it would be proper now to consider the submissions of Mr. Tibrewal in support of the contentions and the plea of the accused mentioned above. 16. Since the purchase of Ajwayan and the fact that it was the accused from whom it was purchased, and that it was found to be adulterated is not in doubt or dispute, it would be proper now to consider the submissions of Mr. Tibrewal in support of the contentions and the plea of the accused mentioned above. The Food Inspector has stated that at the time of purchase of the sample of Ajwayan, the gave Form No. 6 and notice Ex P.l and obtained signatures of the accused and then after making payment got receipt Ex P. 2. These documents have not been disputed, but Mr. Tibrewal has concentrated on the plea of the accused that Ajwayan was not meant for human consumption. It is significant to note that apart from the prosecution evidence that Ajwayan was being sold for human consumption, the defence witnese Ramcharan has also stated that the accused used to sell Ajwayan for human consumption also, although he has stated that the particular Ajwayan bag from which the sample was taken was not meant for human consumption. It is established on the record that the bag from which the sample Ajwayan was taken did not contain any label or mark showing that it was meant for animals ar cattle consumption only, and even if the accused had other bages in which Ajwayan was kept, I am of the opinion that the finding of the lower courts that the Ajwayan sold by the accused to the Food Inspector from the shop where he was doing the business for selling various items of human consumption, and was meant for human consumption is just and proper. 17. Mr. Tibrewals contention is correct that in a criminal case the burden lies on the prosecution and the accused is not required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, when normally the petitioner was doing the business of selling various items for human consumption, and he wanted to carve out an exception for his benefit to escape the normal penalty and the requirements of the Act, where standards have been laid down for each item, then he alone could have proved that this particular case of sale came into exceptional category, where even though he was doing the business for selling various items for human consumption, some of them and this particular item was for consumption of animals. It was all the more necessary, because when the bag from which Ajwayan was taken did not have any label or indication that this particular stuff was not for human consumption, neither the purchaser nor the seller can distinguish which particular Ajwayan is meant for human consumption & which is meant for cattle consumption, even if the accused intended to sell some part of it for animal consumption only. The absence of any label or marking or indication on the bag from which Ajwayan was taken and the similarity of other bags as per statement of Ramcharan defence witness squarely shows that the defence of the accused is an after thought and in-genuine device to escape the penalty under the Act. 18. Both the lower courts have discussed the evidence of defence witnesses, and have also taken note of the fact that while giving the receipt the accused introduced a few words to show that it was meant for cattle consumption, but this introduction was not genuine and was only a clever device to escape punishment and I have got no reason to disagree or take a different view from the view taken by the two lower courts on the appreciation of evidence in revisional jurisdiction. 19. Mr. Tibrewal placed reliance on the judgment of State Vs. Gulab Chand (supra). On a careful study of the judgment, it is obvious that the Gur quality sample of which was taken was a quality which could not be used for human consumption at all. It has been proved even from the statement of the Food Inspector in that case that Gur which was purchased and the sample was taken was Raskat Gur, and the Raskat Gur is a quality which is not meant for human consumption. This special feature of Gulabchands case makes it clear that the acquittal by the lower Court which was upheld by the High Court was based squarely on the basis of admission of the Food Inspector himself along with the other evidence that the quality of Gur purchased or sample of which was taken was Raskat Gur which was never meant or can never be used for human consumption. It is not the case of the accused that Ajwayan in the instant case was of a quality which can never be used for human consumption, nor it has been alleged or shown that there are the different qualities of Ajwayan. In view of this facts and circumstances in which the acquittal of Gulabchand was upheld by the Division Bench it could have no application to the present case and no benefit can be taken by the accused on that count. 20. It must be mentioned that adulteration of the food articles is a serious social crime and normally unless the court finds very genuine defence, the provisions of such laws which are meant for safeguarding the health of the community as a whole should not be allowed to be defeated and frustrated, by ingenuity or device of the accused to outwit the prosecution. In my considered opinion, the present one is a typical case of that type, where the accused by ingenuity wanted to outwit the prosecution by introducing in the receipt the words to show that Ajwayan was for cattle consumption. 21. The facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge in my opinion are just and proper to disbelieve and reject the defence theory that Ajwayan sold to the Food Inspector was not meant for human (consumption. 22. Mr. Tibrewal then submitted that the accused is an old man of more than 60 years age, and it was only by chance that he remained on the shop on that day] where normally his son sits. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the sentence from one year to six months and the fine has also been reduced. Normally, in such cases of food adulteration, there is no ground or reason for reducing the defence. 23. With advancement of Age, an expects maturity and detachment from greed of money. The ancient Indian Vadic concept of advanced age was Vanprasth* and Sanyas. In this space age of materialism, superceding spiritualism, maturity in age is being exploited for inventing ingenuing, new and novel devices, methods and schemes for enriching self, by en-massing 111 gotten wealth by all questionable methods. The ancient Indian Vadic concept of advanced age was Vanprasth* and Sanyas. In this space age of materialism, superceding spiritualism, maturity in age is being exploited for inventing ingenuing, new and novel devices, methods and schemes for enriching self, by en-massing 111 gotten wealth by all questionable methods. The present two cases are microcopier, insignificant samples of mad race of adulteration crime, which is one out of lakhs of variety of economic and socio-economic offences, which in the latest publicly expressed opinion of Honble Hidayatullah, Ex. Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, warrants whipping, if not public whippings. 24. The Appellate and Revisional Courts should not adopt "reduction of sentence methodology" a traditional goodwill gesture system, which has outlived its utility and puts only premium on such crimes. 25. No doubt the maxim is "Old is Gold", but now instead of acting as precious metal of gold, some old persons also want to procure gold by hook or crook, by questionable criminal methods. Therefore, unfortunately in such cases "Old; are not "GOLD" but, they want gold" at any cost and when criminology is resorted to, old cannot escape Jail and yet have gold. 26. A socio-economic crime putting at risk health of society at the alter of silver coins, is antic thesis of "Social Justice". The area of social justice, warrants firm, stringent and strict approach in such social crimes and misplaced traditional leniency results in abatement of such crimes against society. Such offenders who are social perasites, do not deserve any "goody goody" nominal sentences. 27. Exemplary, deterrent punishments is the need of the day for "social justice in social crimes". I, therefore, refuse to become "abator" of this social offence of serious magnitude and reject Mr. Tibrewals prayer of reduction of sentence, which already is unadequate. 28. The result of the above discussion is that this revision fails and is hereby dismissed.