The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the accused to establish the purchase of sealed articles from a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the consideration of constituents and standards in determining the conviction and sentencing.

T.P. Sharma, J.

1. By this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. the Applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment dated 7-10-96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Criminal Appeal No. 6/ 96, affirming the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 5-1-96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1943/92, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted the Applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 (I) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months & pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months.

2. As per case of the complainant/prosecution, the Applicant has sold groundnut oil to the complainant Food Inspector which was found adulterated. After complying the procedure prescribed in the Act, complaint was filed before the competent Court against the Applicant herein and also against Ranulal Chaganlal Firm through Devichand. During the course of trial, Ranulal Chaganlal Firm was discharged on the ground that the said Firm was not manufacturer, distributor or dealer of the packed container and the Applicant has not satisfied the Court that the co-accused has sold the packed container to him. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class convicted & sentenced the Applicant as aforementioned and while affirming the judgment of conviction & order of sentence, the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal.

3. 1 have heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, perused the judgment impugned and record of both the Courts below.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is not manufacturer of packed groundnut oil, he has purchased the same from another co-accused who has been discharged by the trial Court. The Applicant has successfully discharged his obligation in terms of Section 19 of the Act and the Local Authority has not served notice for analysis of the article from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and thereby the right of the Applicant has been ceased. Learned Counsel further submits that the Applicant is facing trial since 1982 and presently his age is more than seventy years. In these circumstances, again sending the Applicant to jail will not serve any purpose and the period already undergone by him along with enhancement of fine will serve the purpose of criminal justice.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed reliance upon the order dated 9-5-2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 156/1997 (Chintaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh) in which this Court has reduced the sentence from three months to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/-. Learned Counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Santosh v. Municipal Corporation and Anr. (2000)9 SCC 151, in which on the basis of constituents of oil falling below the standard very marginally, the Supreme Court has enhanced the fine amount to Rs. 10,000/- and provided opportunity of filing application for commutation of sentence of imprisonment before the appropriate Government under Section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of W.B. and Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 678, in which the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground of financial hardship and mental agony.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the revision and submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted & sentenced the Applicant as aforementioned and concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below are not liable to be disturbed without any cogent reason.

7. As per record and evidence, the Applicant has sold groundnut oil, he is a shopkeeper and used to sell