JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, Advocate for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 01.04.1991 and 05.12.1991. The Judicial Magistrate, Orai vide order dated 01.04.1991 convicted revisionist and sentenced him to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 7/8 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954"). Thereagainst, revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1991 and Appellate Court while dismissing appeal has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court. Being aggrieved the revisionist preferred present revision. 3. It is contended that in the examination of sample the exact percentage of 'Khesari' has not been mentioned and, therefore, no offence is made out. 4. The Public Analyst Report referred its opinion as under: "Namune Me Laghu Matra Me Khesari Ka Aata Mila Hai. Khesari (Lathyrus Sativus) Ka Prayog Khadya Padarth Ke Roop Me Varjit Hai." 5. Learned counsel for revisionist could not dispute that use of Khesari (Lathyrus Sativus) as food product was prohibited and if that be so, whether it was in small quantity or large quantity, the same makes no difference for the reason that its very use is prohibited. 6. Learned counsel for revisionist then contended that the incident is of 1986 and more than 33 years have passed, hence punishment awarded to accused should be reduced to the period already undergone or only fine. 7. Here I find myself unable to be persuaded by above submission. The revisionist has been found committing adulteration in food article. 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. 8. 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. 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt. Accused has been found guilty of adulteration in food item. Court below has already taken a lenient view by imposing punishment of only nine 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. 11. Society had a confidence in the system of justice and is waiting that persons found guilty of committing henious crimes are punished appropriately and suitably, even if punishment is executed with lot of delay since Society has no control over delay occurring in Court but has concrete faith in the system of justice. 11. Society had a confidence in the system of justice and is waiting that persons found guilty of committing henious crimes are punished appropriately and suitably, even if punishment is executed with lot of delay since Society has no control over delay occurring in Court but has concrete faith in the system of justice. Therefore, it is not deterred by delay but is satisfied even when justice comes highly belated, provided it is not diluted and lean in favour of accused so as to treat him like a victim ignoring loss suffered by actual victim. 12. Even otherwise, punishment imposed by Courts below after finding charge proved beyond doubt is not to be interfered lightly unless the Court finds adequate and appropriate reason therefor. 13. In the matter of awarding punishment multiple factors have to be considered by this Court. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. 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 adequate 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 the offence. Sentencing process should be sterned so as to give a message to the offender as well as the person like him roaming free in the society not to indulge 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. 14. Further sentencing process should be sterned 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. Further sentencing process should be sterned 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 be lost 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 the court to give adequate, proper and suitable sentence having regard to various aspects, some of which, are noticed above. 15. In Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and another Vs. State of Gujrat, 2009 7 SCC 254 , 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". (Emphasis added) 16. In Jameel Vs. 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." 17. In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa Vs. 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." 18. In Gopal Singh Vs. 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" 19. In Hazara Singh Vs. 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" 19. In Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar and another, 2013 9 SCC 516 , the Court observed that: "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". (Emphasis added) 20. The revisionist has not shown that punishment, awarded by Court below, is unjust, arbitrary or otherwise illegal. However, what it is trying to take advantage is that the act of the Court should come to his rescue inasmuch as it is this Court which has taken two and half decades and more in taking up this revision and this should come to rescue of the revisionist for making reduction in punishment drastically though otherwise what has been done by the court below cannot be said per-se illegal, unjust or improper. It is well settled that the act of the court prejudice none. The failure of this court in taking up these matters within the reasonable time should not become a hand to the offender like present one to claim reduction in the punishment as a matter of right ignoring the fact that the society requires that an offender should be punished adequately and over the above the victim, who has suffered, is waiting for its own rights in having the offender punished suitably, even if the system of justice takes a long time. The delay in Courts cannot become a factor to convert and accused as a victim ignoring all the rights of the actual victim, who has suffered, his family and the society in shown. The delay in Courts cannot become a factor to convert and accused as a victim ignoring all the rights of the actual victim, who has suffered, his family and the society in shown. Moreover, when the finding of guilty and punishment imposed by the court below is not found erroneous in any manner, I am of the view that such an order of the courts below cannot be interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 21. The judgment in Bhagwan Das Motu Lal Navalani (supra) relied by learned counsel for the revisionist, does not help him inasmuch as it does not lay down any law but the Apex Court has remitted sentence since it possess very wide powers including powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which are not available to this Court. Even otherwise, I find that therein the Court was persuaded from the fact that no allegation of adulteration was made against accused. A sample of Dhaniya was collected. In the analysis, ash percentage was found a little above than the standard prescribed for Dhaniya. Trial Court acquitted accused but convicted by High Court in appeal. Court has clearly mentioned in its order, "Having considered all these peculiar circumstances of the case and also of the fact that Public analyst Report does not indicate any addition of a foreign substance but the only irregularity found was that the total ash percentage was a little above the standard prescribed." and thereafter passed order. 22. Thus, order has been passed in the facts of that case. It does not lay down any law on the subject. On the contrary the law on the subject has been discussed in catena of authorities, some of which are referred to the above, which are binding authorities on this Court. The revisional exercise, therefore, is not justified in these circumstances warranting interference with the orders of courts below, impugned in this revision. 23. The judicial review in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is not like an appeal. It is a supervisory jurisdiction which is exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the orders of subordinate courts but should not be exercised in a manner so as to turn the Revisional court in a Court of Appeal. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained. 24. The legislature has differently made provisions for appeal and revision and the distinction of two jurisdictions has to be maintained. 24. Construing old Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, pertaining to revisional jurisdiction, the Court in D. Stephens Vs. Nosibolla, 1951 AIR(SC) 196 said that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code ought not to be exercised lightly particularly when it is invoked by private complainant against an order of acquittal which could have been appealed against by the Government under Section 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of law or misappreciated the evidence on record. 25. In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 AIR(SC) 1788 it was held that revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court in exceptional cases only when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. However, this was also a case in which revisional jurisdiction was invoked against an order of acquittal. If the Court lacks jurisdiction or has excluded evidence which was admissible or relied on inadmissible evidence or material evidence has been overlooked etc., then only this Court would be justified in exercising revisional power and not otherwise. 26. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. Sarju Singh, 1968 AIR(SC) 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State of Orissa, 1970 AIR(SC) 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another Vs. Ram Narain, 1975 AIR(SC) 580; Jagannath Choudhary and others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002 5 SCC 659 ; and, Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 CrLJ 1627 (S.C.). 27. In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975 4 SCC 649 the Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct. 28. In Pathumma and another Vs. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge was correct. 28. In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986 2 SCC 585 reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact. 29. In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001 9 SCC 631 the Court said: "The revision power under the Code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged." 30. In Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, 2004 7 SCC 665 , in a matter again arising from the judgment of acquittal, the revisional power of High Court was examined and the Court said: "4.Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice." 31. In view of above exposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of revisionist. 32. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 33. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 34. The revisionist-Santosh Kumar is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. In view of above exposition of law and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of revisionist. 32. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. 33. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 34. The revisionist-Santosh Kumar is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi shall cause him to be arrested and lodge in jail to serve out the sentence passed against him. The compliance shall be reported at the earliest. 35. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.