THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.962 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners-A2 and A3 against the judgment, dated 1.4.2011 made by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Crl.A.No.206 of 2010 confirming the judgment dated 20.10.2010 made in C.C.No.70 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 10.8.2006 at about 2 p.m., P.W.1 along with his attender visited M/S. Sree Srinivasa Agency, which was doing business in cool drinks for inspection and at that time the original owner was in America, A1-Muvva Hanumantha Rao was looking after the business. Having suspected that the bottles of Pepsi, Mirinda and 7-up are adulterated, P.W.1 secured the presence of mediator-M. Sreenivasa Rao (P.W.2) and purchased 9 bottles each of the above three varieties and after following the procedure, P.W.1 sent samples to the Public analyst. On 4.10.2006, P.W.1 received a report to the effect that the sample relating to Pepsi does not confirm to the standards of total plate count, yeasts and molds count and it is therefore, adulterated. He also received report relating to sample of Mirinda to the effect that the sample does not confirm to the standards of total plate count, yeasts and molds count and it is therefore, adulterated. The sample of 7-up was reported to be unadulterated. After obtaining sanction orders, P.W.1 filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, against the petitioners and another. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.70 of 2007 for the offence under Section 7(i)2(ia)(m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A1 not guilty for the said offence, but found the petitioners-A2 and A3 guilty of the said offence and accordingly, sentenced the 1st petitioner-A2 to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine o Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and sentenced the 2nd petitioner-A3 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 7(i)(2)(ia)(m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act. The said judgment was questioned by way of filing an appeal in Crl.A.No.206 of 2010 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioners-A2 and A3 filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-A2 and A3 fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but having regard to the fact that the 1st petitioner-A2 has been in jail for a period of six days, a lenient view may be taken insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Heard and perused the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners-accused, I feel that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the 1st petitioner-A2 has been in jail for six days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case wherein a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Courts below against the 1st petitioner-A2 for the offence 7(i)(2)(ia)(m) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act, is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed against the 1st petitioner-A2 for the offence under Sections 7(i) & 2(ia)(m) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of PFA Act by the learned Sessions Judge Prakasam Division, Ongole by judgment dated 1.4.2011 in Crl.A.No.206 of 2010 is reduced to that of the period, which the 1st petitioner-A2 has already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against both the petitioners. The 1st petitioner-A2 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. Except to the above modification, in all other aspects the revision is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 6th April, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.962 of 2011 6.4.2011