THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.765 OF 2004 ORDER: Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Penukonda in S.T.C.No.176 of 2000 on the petitioner by judgment dated 23.08.2002, the accused before the trial court preferred this revision. 2 Facts in brief are that the Food Inspector, Div . II, Anantapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) surprised the business premises of the petitioner on 31.05.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. along with one mediator. During the course of inspection the complainant, having suspected that the turmeric powder packets available in the shop of the petitioner are adulterated, purchased 6 sealed 100 grams packets of turmeric powder under receipt of payment. After following due procedure laid down under law, the complainant sent one sample packet to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad under proper seal where the analyst after examining the same issued certificate opining that the said turmeric powder is adulterated. Thereafter the complainant presented the complaint before the trial court for the alleged offence punishable under Section 16 (1-A) (i), 7(i) (v) and 2(ia) (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rules 23 and 29 of the said Rules against the petitioner. 3 The trial court after assessing the entire evidence available before it, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As against the said judgment dated 23.08.2002 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2002 and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 23.08.2002. The said order of dismissal of the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner is the subject matter of the present revision. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that since the offence is alleged to have taken place about ten years ago, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the apex court in Nand Lal Vs. State of Uttarkhand & Anr[1]. 5 Per contra, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there is a minimum sentence prescribed for the offence committed under the above section of law and hence the sentence cannot be reduced. 6 It is true that for the offence for which the petitioner was tried, there is a minimum sentence and this court cannot reduce the said sentence imposed by the courts below. However, having regard to the fact that the incident took place almost 10 years ago and the petitioner is made roaming from one court to another all these years, a lenient view can be taken and though the minimum sentence is mandatory, following the ratio laid down in Nand Lal case (1 supra) the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. 7 Excepting the above modification, this revision in all other aspects stands dismissed. -------------- 16.07.2010 Pnv [1] AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1875