THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1238 OF 2001 ORDER: 1 The petitioner herein was tried by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence under section 7 (i)(v) and 2(ia)(m) and punishable under section 16 (1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Ac, 1954. The trial court taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.23 marked on behalf of the prosecution, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner challenged the said judgment of the trial court dated 16.08.1999 before the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, vide Criminal Appeal No.333 of 1999, which was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred this revision. 2 This court admitted this revision on 19.10.2001. Brief facts are that on 22.12. 1997 at 1.00 PM the Food Inspector (P.W.1) along with his attender P.W.2 inspected M/s. Nagesh Coffee Works, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and found that the petitioner was conducting the business. P.W.1 checked the premises and found coffee powder in a loose glass bottle and then P.W.1 enquired the petitioner for which the petitioner disclosed that the stock of about 2 kgs of coffee powder in the said loose glass bottle is stored for sale to public for human consumption and that the petitioner manufactured the said coffee powder. Though P.W.1 tried to secure the presence of witnesses from the customers, as none came forward, P.W.2 who is attender under P.W.1 acted as a witness. Then P.W.1 purchased 600 grams of coffee powder by paying Rs.78/- and divided it into three parts in glass bottles separately and pasted labels and out of them two samples were set to public analyst, who after examining it, opined that the sample does not conform to aqueous extract and contains chicory and that it is adulterated. P.W.1 served a letter on the petitioner calling for the business particulars of the petitioner and the petitioner also gave reply. Thus the accused committed the offence punishable under section 7 (i)(v) and 2(ia)(m) and punishable under section 16 (1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Ac, 1954. 3 Having gone through the evidence on record and the judgments of both the courts below and having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this court is of the view that the said sentence imposed by the courts below is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. However, since this is an offence of the year 1997 and since the petitioner is made roaming from one court to another all these years for the offence committed by him and inasmuch as the offence committed by the petitioner falls under Section 16 1 (a) (i) of the Act by which this court can reduce the said sentence of six months to three months, is reducing the said sentence of six months to three months. 4 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed, however, the said sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the court below is reduced to that of three months. -------------- 08.07.2010 Kvsn