The court may consider the age, clean record, and circumstances of the case in sentencing under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

H.K.Sandhu, J.

1. On May 24, 1990, Nand Lal, revision petitioner was intercepted by Govt. Food Inspector Shri C. L. Sikri when he was found in possession of 12 Kgs of cows milk in a drum for public sale. After service of notice Exhibit PA on the petitioner, the Food Inspector purchased 660 mls of milk from him on payment of Rs. 1.50 vide receipt Exhibit PB. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts and was sealed in three dry and clean bottles according to the procedure prescribed for the same. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two were deposited with the Local Health Athority The Public Analyst vide his report Exhibit PD found that the milk was deficient in milk solids not fat by 9%. Prosecution was launched against the petitioner and he was tried for an offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- by Shri U. B. Khanduja, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 31-1-1986 vide which he was convicted, but his appeal was dismissed and his sentence and conviction were maintained by the learned Sessions Judge Kurukshetra, as-per judgment dated May 26, 1986. Both these judgments have been assailed by the petitioner by way of present revision petition.

2. I have heard Shri Gurnam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Randhir Singh, DAG Haryana, for the respondent.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the conviction of the petitioner before me. He simply urged that it is a fit case where the petitioner should not be directed to undergo minimum punishment prescribed by law. It was contended that the petitioner is an old man of the age of 65 years and he has faced this litigation for the last 11years. He has no previous conviction to his discredit and is a man with clean record. He is no longer selling milk. The deficiency found in the milk solids not fat was only marginal. In support of his contention. he placed reliance on the case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 1723, and State of Punjab v. Jeet Singh, 1983(1) CLR 396. In the case of Umrao referred to above. an old man who had a clean record and had sold milk which was marginally deficient in essential contents was awarded less than the minimum sentence prescribed by law, so also in the latter case.

4. The authorities referred to above are applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner who is an old man is a first offender and has a clean record. He has already faced this trial for the last 11 years and in the circumstances of the case it will be appropriate if he is not sent to jail. The sentence is therefore, reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The petition is partly allowed on the question of sentence as mentioned above.