JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri J.N.Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 2. The revisionist has been convicted under Section 7/16 read with Section 2 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1954”) vide judgment and order dated 25.9.1999 passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1996 whereby appeal of the revisionist was rejected confirming the judgment and order dated 1.4.1996 passed by Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhbad by which revisionist was awarded 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- In case of default in payment of fine, revisionist shall undergo further period 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Food Inspector Daulat Ram Nim, PW 1 visited accused’s ice candy factory, situated at Manjhana Road, Nwabganj, District Farrukhabad. No board of ice-candy was found on the factory. Suspecting adulteration, Food Inspector conveyed his intention to get ice-candy examined by Public Analyst and, for that purpose, served notice on the accused. As sample, he purchased 750 gm. ice-candy on payment of Rs. 1.80. After dividing the sample in three equal quantity, put the same into three small bottles, added 20 drops of formalin to each bottle, sealed them and pasted authentic slips provided by local Health Officer. Cash memo for purchase of ice candy was obtained from accused. However, accused refused to sign relevant documents prepared on the spot at the time of taking sample. Signature of one witness namely Virendra Safai Nayak was obtained on documents. Sample was sent to Public Analyst for chemical examination. Chemical Examiner submitted his report dated 20.7.1987, which indicated that sample was adulterated inasmuch as prohibited saccharine was found therein, which is injurious to health. Quantity of sugar was found negligible whereas ice candy must contain at least 10% sugar. After obtaining requisite sanction from local Health Officer, Food Inspector filed complaint on 16.10.1989. 4. Accused pleaded not guilty. He denied the very factum of taking sample and claimed that he was implicated due to enmity. 5. Besides adducing documentary evidence, prosecution examined Food Inspector Sri Daulat Ram as PW 1 and formal witness Sri Khushi Ram as PW 2 in support of its case. 6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the charge and produced Ram Naresh as DW 1 in defence. 7. 5. Besides adducing documentary evidence, prosecution examined Food Inspector Sri Daulat Ram as PW 1 and formal witness Sri Khushi Ram as PW 2 in support of its case. 6. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the charge and produced Ram Naresh as DW 1 in defence. 7. After considering evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for parties, learned Magistrate found the charge proved against the accused and accordingly, vide judgment and order dated 10.4.1996 convicted and sentenced him for committing offence under Section 7/16 read with Section 2 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him for rigorous imprisonment of six months alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months. 8. Appeal filed by accused revisionist before the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad against the order of Trial Court dated 10.4.1996 was finally heard and dismissed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Farukhabad by impugned order dated 25.9.1999. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that incident is of 1989 and more than 26 years have passed, hence punishment of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone or only fine. 10. Here I find myself unable to be persuaded by above submission. The revisionist has been found committing adulteration in food article, to be more precise ice candy, wherein prohibited saccharin, which is very injurious to health was found. Quantity of sugar was found negligible whereas ice candy must contain at least 10% sugar. 11. This is a serious matter. We cannot deal a case of adulteration of food articles in a casual fashion. The people who can dare to adulterate food articles must be dealt with very severely. 12. Adulteration in food article has a direct adverse consequence to the health of public. Many a times such adulteration with food causes such serious loss to the consumer, which is unrecoverable and create permanent disability or loss etc. We cannot presume that the milk sold by accused-revisionist would have been used by a healthy person and not a patient facing serious disease in the Hospital or otherwise. The adulterated item is bound to cause such loss as it could be and the consumer would suffer without having any knowledge therefor. We cannot presume that the milk sold by accused-revisionist would have been used by a healthy person and not a patient facing serious disease in the Hospital or otherwise. The adulterated item is bound to cause such loss as it could be and the consumer would suffer without having any knowledge therefor. The people who are indulged in adulteration are more dangerous and stark enemy of humanity than those who commit crime by killing a person straight. Here the hidden crime causes injury to a person who has no idea as to how he has suffered and that too in a defenceless situation. He would believe that food articles contain substance as naturally are supposed to be present there, but adulteration has changed its nature in a different and rather bad way. Consumer suffers in ignorance but with an obvious confidence that whatever he is intaking is alright. The adulterators, therefore, do commit a much heinous and serious crime to the Society as a whole and deserve no sympathy. 13. In fact, in our Country, we deal with adulteration with lot of sympathy which encourages continuous indulgence in such activities. The adulteration is not being treated with such seriousness as it ought to be. This treatment to adulteration is anti-human and anti-society. The act of adulteration need be viewed with absolute strictness and stringent measures must be taken to prevent it, else Society in general would continue to suffer in the hands of adulterators, who are minting money playing with health of public at large without taking care whether suffering consumer would be an innocent child, a pregnant lady, a patient in Hospital struggling for life or any such other needy person. 14. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. Accused has been found guilty of adulteration of ice candy. Court below has already taken a lenient view by imposing punishment of only six months’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. Attempt to grant any indulgence in such a matter, when the Court below has already taken a lenient view in awarding punishment, would be nothing but mockery of justice. 15. A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State, and, society in particular, even though it is committed against individual(s). 1000/-. Attempt to grant any indulgence in such a matter, when the Court below has already taken a lenient view in awarding punishment, would be nothing but mockery of justice. 15. A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State, and, society in particular, even though it is committed against individual(s). This Court in State of U.P. v. Babu and others, 2007(9) ADJ 107 (DB), has said: “The duty of the Court of law is heavy in the sense that it should ensure that no innocent S.C. Mohan v. State of Kerla, should be punished but simultaneously it is also under an obligation to see that no guilty person should escape from the clutches of law by taking advantage of so-called technicalities as this will not only lead to further serious threats to the entire society but may also shake the confidence of public at large in the system of dispensation of justice. Our experience has shown that exonerating a guilty person due to any reason whatsoever has caused more damage to the society since it has multiplied the occurrence of crime as well as has also produced more criminals attracting them to commit crime since easy acquittal has resulted in encouraging them to break law with impunity. It will be useful to remind with the words of caution as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Krishna Ayer J.) in Shiva Ji Sahabrao Bobade (supra) emphasizing to keep balance between the individual liberty and evil of acquitting guilty persons. The Court observed that we should remind ourselves of necessary social perspective in criminal cases which suffers from insufficient forensic appreciation. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to the victim and the community, demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The Courts having duty of judicial review owe the public accountability of such system. The golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. The golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumption against indicted persons and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. Miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of innocent.” 16. The above observations were made on the question of conviction but, in my view, once the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case and conviction is upheld by all the Courts, if its consequence is allowed to be diluted by modifying punishment to the extent of having no consequence merely on the ground of time consumed in legal remedy, whatsoever, it would make a mockery of entire criminal system of justice since the victim and his family i.e. the real suffers as also the society has no control over such proceedings and delay occurred therein. 17. Commenting upon the sentencing policy, in State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, 2012 (8) SCC 537 , the Court said that punishments should reflect gravity of offence and also the criminal background of convict. The graver the offence and longer the criminal record, more severe is the punishment to be awarded. By laying emphasis on individualized justice, and shaping the result of crime to the circumstances of offender and needs of victim and community, restorative justice eschews uniformity of sentencing. In para 21 of the judgment, the Court further said: “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the public system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats” 18. In para 21 of the judgment, the Court further said: “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the public system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats” 18. The Court further said that it is the duty of Courts to award proper sentence, having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. The Courts should impose a punishment befitting the crime so that Courts are able to accurately reflect public abhorrence of the crime. It is the nature and gravity of crime, and not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on social order in many cases may be in reality, a futile exercise. 19. In Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 1377 , the Court said: “Every punishment imposed is bound to have its effect not only on the accused alone, but also on the society as a whole.” 20. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others, (2013) 9 SCC 516 , the Court referred to its earlier decision in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359 and quoted with approval the following passage: “... undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence stern and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.” 21. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (7) SCC 254 , the Court said: “99. The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. .... 100. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. .... 100. Justice demands that Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong.” 22. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar and others (supra), the Court in para 17 also said: “We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.” 23. In the matter of awarding punishment multiple factors have to be considered by this Court. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. stern Security of individuals as well as property of individuals is one of the essential functions of the State. The administration of criminal law justice is a mode to achieve this goal. The inherent cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice is that the punishment imposed on an offender should be a stern dequate so as to serve the purpose of deterrence as well as reformation. It should reflect the crime, the offender has committed and should be proportionate to the gravity of offence. Sentencing process should be stern so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him, roaming free in the society, not to in stern dulge in criminal activities but also to give a message to society that an offence if committed, would not go unpunished. Sentencing process should be stern so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him, roaming free in the society, not to in stern dulge in criminal activities but also to give a message to society that an offence if committed, would not go unpunished. The offender should be suitably punished so that society also get a message that if something wrong has been done, one will have to pay for it in proper manner, irrespective of time lag. 24. Further sentencing process should be stern but tampered with mercy where-ever it is so warranted. How and in what manner element of leniency shall prevail, will depend upon multifarious reasons including the facts and circumstances of individual case, nature of crime, the matter in which it was committed, whether preplanned or otherwise, the motive, conduct, nature of weapon used etc. But one cannot lose sight of the fact that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to justice system as it is bound to undermine public confidence in the efficacy of law. The society cannot long endure such serious threats. It is duty of Court to give adequate, proper and suitable sentence, having regard to various aspects, some of which, are noticed above. 25. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another v. State of Gujrat (supra) the Court confirmed that: “any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system”. 26. In Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (12) SCC 532 , the Court held that: “It is the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing Courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence.” 27. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa v. State of Karnataka, 2012 (8) SCC 734 , the Court said that: “The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.” 28. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa v. State of Karnataka, 2012 (8) SCC 734 , the Court said that: “The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored.” 28. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) JT 444 , the Court said that: “Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence”. 29. The revisionist has not shown that punishment, awarded by Court below, is unjust, arbitrary or otherwise illegal. However, what he is trying is to take advantage of delay in Court. His endeavour is that the act of Court should come to his rescue inasmuch as it is this Court which has taken two decades and more in taking up this revision and this should come to his rescue for making reduction in punishment drastically though otherwise what has been done by Court below cannot be said per-se illegal, unjust or improper. 30. It is well-settled that the act of Court prejudices none. Failure of this Court in taking up these matters within a reasonable time should not become a hand tool to the offenders, like present one to claim reduction in punishment as a matter of right, ignoring the fact that society requires that an offender should be punished adequately, and, over the above, the victim(s), who has/have suffered, is waiting 1-11in its/their own rights for having offender punished suitably, even if the system of justice takes a long time. The delay in Courts cannot become a factor to convert an accused, a victim, ignoring all the rights of actual victim, who has suffered, his family and the society in general. Moreover, when finding of guilt and punishment imposed by Court below is not found erroneous in any manner. I am of the view that such an order of Court(s) below cannot/shall and must not be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 31. In the result, I have no hesitation in holding that this revision lacks merit. Dismissed. 32. Interim order dated 4.11.1999 stands vacated. 33. The revisionist, Shiv Shankar Lal is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. 31. In the result, I have no hesitation in holding that this revision lacks merit. Dismissed. 32. Interim order dated 4.11.1999 stands vacated. 33. The revisionist, Shiv Shankar Lal is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. Compliance shall be reported within two months. 34. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.