HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.318 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner- accused against the judgment, dated 15.02.2006, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2005 by the IV Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet. 2. The petitioner-accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.107 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) & (v) 2 (ia) (J) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 r/w Rules 23 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, convicted the petitioner for the said offences under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, vide judgment, dated 18.11.2005. 3. As against the said conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2005 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet and the learned Sessions Judge, having gone through both the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, vide judgment, dated 15.02.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred this revision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner by not pressing the main prayer confined his arguments to the extent of imposition of sentence and requested the Court to show some indulgence on the petitioner. 6. In view of the said submission and also the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have given concurrent findings, this Court is of the view that merits of the prosecution case and the impugned judgment need not be adjudicated. 7. It is represented that the petitioner is the only bread winner of his family and has to look after the necessities of his family members. Admittedly, the offence took place in the year 2002 and for all these years the petitioner suffered humiliation. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to show some lenience towards the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the conviction recorded against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) & (v) 2 (ia) (J) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 r/w Rules 23 and 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 as confirmed by the appellate Court is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to that of the period already undergone by the petitioner- accused. As far as imposition of fine is concerned, apart from the fine of Rs.2,000/-, the petitioner is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) before the trial Court on or before 20.02.2011, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 9. In all other respects, the impugned judgment shall stand confirmed. 10. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 14th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.318 of 2006 DATE: 14.12.2010 Between : Gangishetty Ramulu … Petitioner/ Accused and State of A.P. ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.318 of 2006 (Disposed of) 14th December, 2010 cbs