THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.230 of 2010 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the complaint given by the Food Inspector, East Godavari District Division-III, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a) (i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, alleging that on 03.05.2003, he inspected Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Mineral Water Industries, Kutukuluru Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District and found 100 bags containing 250 ml sealed sachets of Ganga Sri Pure Drinking water; that on suspicion of adulteration, P.W-1-Food Inspector purchased 36 packets and sent the same to Public Analyst for analysis after completing the other formalities; that the Public Analyst after causing analysis opined that the sample of water does not have BIS certification and is, therefore, misbranded; and that the Director, Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad accorded consent for institution of prosecution against the accused. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-21 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 23.09.2008, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, who by his judgment, dated 04.02.2010, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused was in jail for four days. He further contended that the date of commission of the alleged offence is on 03.05.2003 and the complaint was given on 28.03.2005, thus, there was abnormal delay of about two years in launching the prosecution against the accused. In the light of the said submissions of the learned counsel, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 04.02.2010 and immediately, the accused was taken into custody. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 08.02.2010, he was released from jail. Thus, the accused was in jail for four days, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Sections 16(1) (a)(i), 7(i)and (2)(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 25thMarch 2011 DR