fy^~^&'\ .^o ..'•.;v.rs-^ v \ Crimlnai Revision No. 1139 of 199! Aoplicant (In Jail) Anandram Son ofShivcharan. aaed about 48 yesrs, resident ofviilage Khaura, Tehsi! Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur, JVI.P. unim versiis State of Macihya Pradesh :.R SECTION 397/401 OF THE CODE OF (S8: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.: "resent: Smt. indira Tripathi, Advocate for the appllcant. Shri Sanjeev K. Agrav/a!, Pane! laivyer for the respondent. srii, on 2 This revision is directed aaainst the iudgmsnt of acquittal dated 26.11.1996 rassed bv the Additionai Sessions Judae, Dhamtari, in Crimlna! A.ooea! No. 10/96 affirmina the iudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.S.1996 oassed bv the Judicia! Masistrate First Ciass. Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 1368/93 whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class has convictsd the app!icant for seiiing adulteratsd ground-nut oil under ssction 7 read wsih section 1S (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Aduiteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 1954') and sentenced hlm to underao R.l. for 6 months and to Dav fine of Rs. 1000/-, in dera.uit of oavmsnt of fine. to further undergo 3.1. for 3 months. 2. During the course of arguments, iearned counsei for the appiicant sufam'ts that she is only chalienging the order of the sentenoe and praying ror ienieni: View. 3. Counse! for the oarties heard. 4. Judament im.pucined and records of the courts below perused. .^;^£^ 2.- According to the record of the trial court. the trial court has rightlv convicted the applicant for seliing aduiterated ground-nut oii under section 7 read with section 18 (1) (a) (1) ofthe Act, 1954 and same was upheid in appeai. 6. As regards to the question of sentence, it is argued on behaif cf the appiicant that an incident took place on 27.4.83 and after lapse of 25 years again sending the applicsnt in jaii will not sewe any purpose and enhancina the fine amount may be sufficient to sewe the Duroose of crimina! iustice. 7. Reiiance is ptaced on behaif of the appiicant in the ease of Ganesh Prasad v. State of M.P. reportsd in MPWN 1995 (!1) 251 'n which the High Court of fvladhya Pradesh has heid that after 14 years of the incldent no purpose wiil be sewed by send'ng the appiicant in jaii and enhancing of fine amount is sufflcient punishment. Reiiance is aiso placed on behalf of the applicant in the case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1981) 3 SCC 91 in which the Hon'bie Supreme Court has held that considering a margina! deficisncy ofthe required standard, the app'icantwas sentenced to the period aiready undergone and sentence of fine amount maintained. 9. Learned counsel further piaced reliance ,in the case of Haripada Das v. State ofW.B. and another reported in (19981 9 SCC 878 in which the Hon'bie Suoreme Court after considsrina the hardshio of the aDDiicant. reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and fine was ennancea, 10. On the other hand, judgment impugned is supported on beha'f of the resDondent.'State. -3 S4 .'' h'.'"." ^: f '" i, " I i . in the Instant case, the aileged ground-nut oii was not found to oe ihe standard prescnbed and there was a marginal variation, but this is not a case of adding anything in the addibie oiis. incident took piace on 27.4.83 and afrer !apse of 25 years i am of the view that no any ourpose will be served in sending the appilcant in jali and object of criminal j'ustice may be served by awarciing the sentence to the psriod already undergone by him and enhancing the fine amount. 12. Consequently, fhe revision js partiy aliov/ed. Conviction is irsaintained and sentence is modified. The appiicant is sentenced for the period a'ready undergone, instead of R.L for S months & to pay fine o'f Rs. 3000/-, instead of Rs. 10OO/-. The applicant is d'rected to deposit the fine amount within a period of 15' dsys from the dote of receipt of a copy of thls order, in defautt of payment of flne, to further undergo S.i. for 3 n-onins Bf- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^tj fc