HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.717 OF 2005 Date: 01-12-2010 Between: Gajjala Sudhakar. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.717 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment, dated 26.04.2005, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2004 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The petitioner-accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.429 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, wherein after due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sulthanabad, convicted the petitioner-accused under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. As against the said conviction, the petitioner-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, and the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 26.04.2005. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. Heard both sides. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. In view of the said submission, this Court is of the view that merits of the prosecution case and impugned judgments need not be adjudicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is aged about 65 years and suffering from ailments. Further, this is a case wherein the petitioner is not a license holder and he is an illiterate and he is not aware of the procedures to be followed. So, he is not in a position to inform the Officer regarding the purchase of the oil from the manufacturer. Further, he is not looking after the shop also. Therefore, he prays for some leniency. Learned Additional Public prosecutor also submitted that even though there is no provision in the said Act, considering the circumstances, this Court in earlier occasion set aside the sentence of imprisonment and imposed fine. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused, the conviction is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) before the trial Court, apart from the fine already imposed by the trial Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 01-12-2010 Dsh