HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1114 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, in Crl.A.No.129 of 2005 dated 28.07.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of two months, for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (i) (a) (m) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’) imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, in C.C.No.574 of 2002 dated 13.06.2005. It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.01.2002 at about 2.30 P.M. the Food Inspector (PW.1) along with his attender (P.W.2) inspected the Bakery premises of the accused and found the accused transacting business with an open tin containing 6 K.Gs of Vanaspathi, which is used for preparation of bakery foods, and on suspicion that the said Vanaspathi as adulterated, he purchased 1,500 gms. of Vanaspathi for the purpose of sending it for public analysis. After purchase, he divided the said Vanaspathi into three equal parts and sent one sample to the Public Analyst, who gave his report opining that the sample does not conform to Red Units in respect of sesame oil and is, therefore, adulterated. Accordingly, a complaint was filed after following the procedure contemplated under the Act. The complaint was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. During the trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 2 (i) (a) (m) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this revision. Heard both sides. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given sufficient and cogent reasons in convicting the revision petitioner- accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned, but with regard to the quantum of sentence, it may be mentioned that the alleged offence took place in the year 2002 and almost 8 years have passed and during this period the revision petitioner must have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of more than four days subsequent to the dismissal of the criminal appeal on 29.09.2010. In the aforesaid circumstances and as it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner has been fixed, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to that of the period already undergone by the revision petitioner-accused. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of Six months imposed against the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2 (i) (a) (m) read with Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West Godavari District at Eluru, by his judgment dated 13.06.2005, and as confirmed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, in Criminal Appeal No.129 of 2005, by his judgment dated 28.07.2008, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner. The revision petitioner-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 05-10-2010 Gsn.