IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1329 OF 2002() ------------------------------------------- CC.178/1989 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM CRA.138/1998 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ FIRST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.M.KURIAKOSE, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, MENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOOD INSPECTOR, MEENADAM PANCHAYATH, CHANGANACHERRY CIRCLE, PERUNNAI P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1329 of 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence under Section 7(i) & (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, “the Act”) and Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short, “the Rules”) for alleged sale of food article without obtaining licence required under the Act and Rules. 2. Case is that Food Inspector purchased chilly powder from the petitioner on 17.6.1989 and the sample of chilly powder on analysis by Public Analyst was found to be not in conformity with the standard prescribed for chilly powder. Accused No.2 was impleaded as manufacturer of chilly powder. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam found petitioner as well as accused No.2 guilty and convicted them for various offences including sale of chilly powder which did not conform to the prescribed standard. Petitioner preferred appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam found that conviction and sentence of petitioner for alleged sale of food article cannot stand since petitioner is entitled to the protection under Sec.19 (2) of the Act. His conviction and sentence for that offence were set CRL. R.P. No.1329 of 2002 -: 2 :- aside. But his conviction for sale of food article without licence was confirmed and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-. 3. So far as conviction of petitioner for offence under Sec.7(iii) of the Act is concerned there is the evidence of Food Inspector as P.W.1 that petitioner could not produce any licence when it was asked for at the time Food Inspector purchased the food article from petitioner. Exhibits P13 and P14 show that petitioner was not having any licence under the Act for the sale of food article. Hence there is no reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner under Sec.7(iii) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is undergoing treatment for cancer since the last few years and produced documents to support that contention. Along with Crl.M.P. No.5698 of 2009 attested photocopies of the relevant records from the hospitals concerned are produced. It is seen that petitioner is undergoing treatment for cancer and that he had to undergo surgery on the neck. Considering the situation in which petitioner is placed I am inclined to show leniency to the petitioner in the matter of sentence. As per proviso (ii) to Sec.16(1)(g) sentence provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three months and fine which may extend up to Rs.500/-. Petitioner is not shown to be involved in any similar CRL. R.P. No.1329 of 2002 -: 3 :- offence on previous occasion. In the circumstances I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.500/- will be sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: (i) Substantive sentence imposed on petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (ii) Sentence of fine is modified as Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 31.7.2009 to receive the sentence. Fine if any deposited above Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) shall be refunded to the petitioner. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.5698 of 2009 shall stand allowed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7336 of 2002 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO.1329 of 2002 =================== O R D E R 23RD JUNE, 2009