The court applied the provisions of the PFA Act to uphold the conviction for adulteration of milk and exercised the power of commutation under Section 433(d) of Cr.PC based on the age of the matter.

1. - By this revision petition, a challenge is made to the order passed by the trial Court so as the Appellate Court maintaining conviction for an offence under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "PFA Act"). The samples of milk taken are found to be substandard, thus order of conviction was passed. As per the report, contents of milk solid non fat were less than 0.5 percent and contents of milk fat were less than 0.2 percent. In view of above, the milk was said to be adulterated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution failed to produce independent witnesses to prove the case, thus conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act deserves to be set aside.

3. It is alternatively argued that even if conviction is maintained, the matter can be sent for commutation as per Section 433 of Cr.P.C. and for the aforesaid purpose, a reference of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara reported in (1997) 9 SCC 101 has been given wherein taking note of Section 433 of Cr.PC., the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for commutation of sentence.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand supported the order of conviction and submits that looking to the adulteration in the milk, order of conviction and sentence is appropriate. The prosecution could prove his case beyond doubt and therein, not only the statement of Food Inspector but chemical report of sample was produced showing that contents of milk fat were less than by 0.2 percent and contents of solid non fat were less than 0.5 percent, thus milk was found to be adulterated. The samples of milk was taken from the petitioner, thus he has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act. Accordingly, interference in the order of conviction and sentence may not be made.

5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. So far as the evidence to prove the case of the petitioner is concerned, the statements of witnesses have been recorded along with the documents, which includes receipt of purchase of milk and thereafter, receipt of sample apart from report of chemical analyst at P-7. The authorisation in favour of the Food Commissioner was also produced, thus looking to the evidence on record where the purchase of milk was from the petitioner and chemical report showed it to be adulterated. I do not find any illegality in the order of conviction.

7. The fact, however, remains that matter is old by more than 26 years and conviction in the present matter is with the minimum sentence provided under the PFA Act but taking note of the provision of Section 433 of Cr.PC and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Sukumaran Nair (supra), I find it to be appropriate to pass order for commutation. Therefore, as per Section 433(d) of Cr.PC for commute of sentence, which took place before almost 26 years, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine to commute sentence of simple imprisonment within a period of two months. With the deposition of such fine, the appropriate Government may be moved and finalise the matter as per Section 433(d) of Cr.PC. With the aforesaid, the order of sentence is to be governed and till the order is passed by the appropriate Government, sentence will remain suspended. In case of default in payment of fine, as directed, the sentence as ordered by the Court below would be maintained and in that case, bail bonds may be cancelled.

8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The record of the Court below may be sent back.Petition Disposed of.

*******