THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2110 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.2004 made in C.A.No.34 of 2003 by the District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The petitioner-accused has been running a Kirana shop situated at Indukurpet. On 17.6.1999 at about 10.00 am., A. Malakonda Reddy, Food Inspector (P.W.1), Division II, Nellore District, visited the shop of the petitioner-accused along with his office attender V. Hanumantha Rao and found that the petitioner-accused had been transacting business. P.W.1 suspected that green gram dal packet kept in a rack, exhibited for sale is adulterated. He served Form VI notice intimating the petitioner about his intention to send the sample to the Public analyst, State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis and purchased 750 grams of green gram dal by paying its cost of Rs.18/- in the presence of mediator viz., G. Subrahmanyam. After obtaining sample from the petitioner in the presence of the mediators, he divided the green gram dal into three equal parts, placed the same in empty clean dry plastic containers and sealed them as required under law and after following due procedure, the Food Inspector sent one part of the sample together with Form VII with specimen seal to the public analyst. The remaining two parts were handed over to the Local authority Nellore for safe custody under acknowledgement. On receipt of the analyst report to the effect that the sample analysed is adulterated, the Food Inspector obtained sanction for instituting prosecution against the petitioner and thereafter, filed a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii), 7 (i) & (v) and 2(ia)(b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules 23 and 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The same was taken cognizance by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and numbered as C.C.No.245 of 1999. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(i) and (v) and 2(ia)(b) of PFA Act, 1954 and Rules 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.34 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Nellore. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the Court below. Questioning the said judgment, the petitioner filed the present revision. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but he requested to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of four days. On a perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that as the petitioner was absconding on the date of pronouncement of the judgment by the lower appellate Court, NBWs were issued against him. In the meantime, the petitioner filed the present revision along with an application seeking bail. As he was not arrested, this Court refused to grant bail. The petitioner surrendered on 7.2.2005 and moved another application seeking bail and this Court granted bail on 11.2.2005. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner-accused was in jail for four days. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner-accused, I feel that the conviction recorded by the Courts below do not warrant any interference. But however, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been wandering around the Courts since 1999 and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused was in jail for a period of four days, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(i) and (v) and 2(ia)(b) of P.F.A.Act, 1954 and Rules 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence Section 16(1)(a)(ii), 7(i) and (v) and 2(ia) (b) of P.F.A.Act, 1954 and Rules 23 and 29 of PFA Rules, 1955 imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner-accused is reduced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the sentence of fine. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 10th March, 2011 Nn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2110 of 2004 10.3.2011