The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but reduced the sentence to time already served, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the petitioner's lack of prior offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Criminal appeal No. 4/2001 (Old No. 24/2000), whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 16.09.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta City in Criminal Case No. 215/1996 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' R.I. along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' additional imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 20.10.1996 the complainant Food Inspector inspected the drum containing milk which was being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs. 7.50 to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No. 6 was given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of milk. After following due procedure, the samples were tested and the same were found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined the witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7/16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 16.09.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 13.10.2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1996. The petitioner was 23 years of age at that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 27 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of ten days out of total sentence of six months R.I. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

7. A