Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bharosi vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986(1)WLN548
JUDGMENT Farooq Hasan, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur (Camp : Gangapur City) dated 10-1-1980 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order of conviction of the petitioner passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur on 5-10-1979.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Karauli inspected the shop of the petitioner on 6-7-1976 and took the sample of milk. The sample of milk was sent to the Public Analys who after analysis found that the milk was adulterated. It has been found by the Public Analyst that the milk contained 16 percent of the added water. He further found that the milk contents were as follows:
(1) Fat Content 4.6% (2) Solids non-fat 7.52% (3) Cane Sugar and Starch Nil
3. On the basis of the said analysis the milk was held to be adulterated by the Public Analyst, and therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused petitioner in the Court of CJM, Sawai Madhopur. The prosecution examined three witnesses. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him. The trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 (here in after referred to as the Act of 1954), and passed the conviction and sentence as aforesaid.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner runs a petty shop, and the milk is kept for preparation of tea and not for sale. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that the Courts below did not comply with the provisions of Section 235(2) and 360, Cr. PC.
6. Learned P. P. on the other hand contended that the milk in question was sold by the petitioner to the Food Inspector, Karauli
7. It is correct to say that ordinarily this Court while sitting in revision cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot -interfere with the finding of facts of the Courts below unless the orders passed by the subordinate Courts are erroneous or there is a glaring mistake in the procedure or there is a manifest error, and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any error or a flagrant mistake. It was expected by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the evidence produced by the prosecution should be appreciated by this Court, because a different conclusion can be drawn after appreciation of the evidence. As stated earlier, while sitting in revision this Court should not and cannot appreciate the evidence, which has been appreciated by the Courts below, and a concurrent finding is given by those Courts. I do not find any glaring defect in the procedure or any mistake apparent on the face of record.
8. As stated earlier, the case against the accused-petitioner is based on inspection, which was done by the Food Inspector on 6-7-76, and the complaint was filed before the C.J.M. on 12-10-76. Throughout the period of trial and appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, the accused-petitioner was on bail. After dismissal of the appeal, he remained in custody for about 18 days. The accused-petitioner has been sentenced to six month imprisonment and he cannot be given the benefit of the Probation of Ofien-ders Act, because there is a specific bar in this Act for awarding the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convicted persons who are above the age of 18 years. The accused petitioner was 19 years of age. Looking to the case of the accused petitioner and the dated of judgment, I am of the opinion that after a lapse of about 9 years it will not be just and proper to send him to jail for serving out the sentence. In many cases this Court as well as the other High Courts have taken a lenient view while passing order in appeal or revision against a convicted person. Although in the instant case the minimum sentence is prescribed, but looking to the facts of the case, it well be just and proper to sentence the accused petitioner for a period already undergone by him. Because the case is related to food adulteration, therefore the raising of amount of fine will serve out the purpose.
9. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The accused petitioner is sentenced for the period already undergone by him, but the sentence of fine is enchanced to Rs. 1500/-. The fine be deposited within a period of two months, failing which the petitioner shall undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.