The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reduced the sentence to the period already served due to the lengthy trial and circumstances surrounding the case.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7 and 16 - Conviction and sentencing of petitioner for selling adulterated milk - The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner contended lack of positive evidence for adulteration. (Paras 1, 4, 9)

(B) Revision Jurisdiction - The court recognized the long duration of the trial (27 years) and the time already served by the petitioner, leading to a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a milk vendor, was convicted for selling adulterated milk based on a Public Analyst's report from 1997. The trial included testimony from five witnesses and 17 documents.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced to the time already served due to the protracted nature of the trial and the petitioner's suffering.

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of evidence for the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence given the lengthy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained the conviction but deemed it just to reduce the sentence due to the delay in proceedings and the petitioner's prior custody.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 26.09.2005 in Cr. Original Case No.500/1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, District Jodhpur whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment and the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the learned Add. Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.16/2005 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been affirmed.

2. As per prosecution, on 11.03.1997 the samples of milk were taken from the petitioner who is a milk vendor in the presence of the witnesses Jagdish Narayan and Gusai Lal. The same were sent for examination to the Public Analyst after duly following the procedure provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Public Analyst in its report has found the milk samples to be ’Adulterated’.

3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses and also exhibited 17 documents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He further submitted that the incident in the present case occurred in the year 1997. There is no positive evidence regarding adulterating of the milk by the petitioner and in the absence thereof, only on the basis of the report of Public Analyst, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed the alleged crime or the milk was adulterated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 22.02.2007 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.15/2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 1997 and the petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded to him, therefore the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka: 2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582

7. Per Contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that the learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments/orders and therefore, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the record of the case.

9. This Court finds that the petitioner was a milk vendor and there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the report of the Public Analyst, wherein the sample of milk drawn from the petitioner was found to be ‘Adulterated’. However, in the opinion of this Court, since the incident relates to the year 1997 and the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 27 years coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

10. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction, his sentence for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration

Click Here to Read the rest of this document