THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1404 of 2004 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the complaint given by the Food Inspector, Division-II, Guntur, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1a)(m) and Section 7(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’), alleging that on 27.03.1998, at about 11.45 pm., he inspected Hotel New India in Mangalagiri belonging to the accused and on suspicion, purchased 750 ml of buffalo curd and sent a sample of the same to the Public Analyst for analysis, after completing the other formalities; that the Public Analyst after causing analysis opined that the said sample is not in conformity with the standards of buffalo milk and hence, the charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-20 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 19.07.2002, convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, who by his judgment, dated 12.08.2004, 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 has been in jail for five days. In the light of the said submission of the learned counsel, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 12.08.2004 and immediately, the accused was taken into custody. Subsequently, by virtue of the bail granted by this Court on 16.08.2004, while admitting the Revision, he was released on bail. Thus, it is evident that he has undergone a sentence of about four days and hence, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 2(1a)(m) and Section 7(1) of the Act, punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the 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 31st March 2011 dr