Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 768 (ALL)

Om Prakash v. State of U. P

1989-10-27

S.I.JAFRI

body1989
JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - This revision filed by Om Prakash applicant hereby impugning his conviction under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was admitted on the question of sentences only. 2. On being convicted under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and further to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-under the aforesaid section by C.J.M. Almorah by his judgment and order dated 17.2.1981, the applicant went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Almorah, who, upon a consideration of the facts and circumstances on record, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences recorded against him by the trial court. 3. The facts of the case arc that suspecting adulteration, on 15.6.1979 at 9 A.M. the Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Almorah purchased 600 grams of Chilly powder as sample for the purposes of analysis from the godown of the applicant situated in Niazganj Almorah. After observing all the requisite formalities, the sample was sent to Analyst for analysis. As per report of Analyst the sample was found to be adulterated. Hence prosecution was launched against the applicant. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the judgments and orders of both the courts below. I have also scanned the facts and circumstances on record. 5 The learned counsel for the applicant has dwelt upon discrepancies which the judgments and orders of the courts below bristle with. A probe into the facts and circumstances of the case in so far as case on merit is concerned, reveals that no case for interference is made out. I may observe that the findings arrived at by the courts below are fortified by cogent and convincing reasons. The evidence of the witnesses examined in this case, is above reproach and suspicion and does not appear to be suffering from any incompetence. The alleged infirmities adverted to by the learned counsel are devoid of any legal substance. In the instant case, adulteration in the chilly powder meant for human consumption is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the guilt of the applicant has been established. In such cases, where adulteration in the items meant for human consumption, is proved, the culprits deserve no leniency and they require to be dealt with iron hands. In the instant case, adulteration in the chilly powder meant for human consumption is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the guilt of the applicant has been established. In such cases, where adulteration in the items meant for human consumption, is proved, the culprits deserve no leniency and they require to be dealt with iron hands. I fully concur with the findings of the courts below that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the applicant. 6. It is commiseritingly submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the incident in the instant case is of the year 1979 and since then much water is flowed down the river. It is further submitted that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate himself in the society and that it would serve no useful purpose by sending the applicant to serve out the sentences of imprisonment. I do not concur with the contentions of the learned counsel. However taking into account that a sufficiently long time has since elapsed, I propose to reduce the sentence from six months' R.I, to three months' R.I. and fine from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500. 7. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction recorded against the applicant under the aforesaid section is affirmed. However the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to three months instead of six months and that of fine from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/- and in default, the applicant shall undergo R.I. for two months. The applicant is granted three months' time to deposit the fine in the court of C.J.M. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of three months. 8. Office is directed to take steps in the light of the directions contained above.