The court upheld the conviction for food adulteration but modified the sentence to reflect leniency due to the petitioner's age, lack of criminal history, and the prolonged nature of the trial.

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 19.08.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Criminal appeal No. 75/2003, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment dated 29.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Regular Criminal Case No. 407/1999 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 2 months' SI.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 10.03.1992 the Food Inspector Ramswaroop inspected two tanks containing cow milk which were being carried by the petitioner on his motorcycle. Upon a suspicion, he purchased 750 ML milk on payment of Rs.4 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 after obtaining prosecution sanction.

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 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 29.08.2001. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 19.08.2003. 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 1992. The petitioner was 32 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 31 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of one month out of total sentence of six months S.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 the petitioner is an old aged person. It was the first criminal case registered against him 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 appe