IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2002 Date of decision : March 9, 2009 Padam Dev …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Revision petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court through the present revision petition for the reversal of his conviction and sentence for offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 (iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ordered by the trial Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Judge, in appeal. 2. Appellant was found carrying 3 litres of milk for sale on Rajgarh Road at Solan, on 11.3.1999, by Food Inspector. He was required to produce licence. He did not possess the same. Therefore, proceedings for his prosecution for the aforesaid offence were initiated. Report was filed by Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the Food Inspector. Petitioner was summoned. Substance of accusation was put to him. He pleaded guilty. Trial Magistrate (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan) convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. Appeal filed against his conviction and sentence stands dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 252 Cr. P.C. requires a Magistrate to record plea of guilty of an accused in a summary trial, in his own words, as far as possible, but in the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the plea in English. For two reasons, the submission does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. First, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, conceded that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the offence voluntarily. Secondly, the non-recording of the plea of guilty of accused, in his own words, is not fatal unless it is shown that some prejudice has been caused to him, on account of the plea having not been recorded in his own words. 4. However, the offence, the petitioner has been convicted of, is punishable under proviso second of sub- section (i) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because the petitioner has been convicted of the offence described in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub- …3… section (1) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for which he is liable to be sentenced to undergo imprisonment which may extend to three months and fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. 5. The record shows that the petitioner remained in jail for four days, after being convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Looking to the nature of the offence, the sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced from two months to the imprisonment already undergone. Sentence of fine, as imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is, however, maintained. Revision petition stands disposed of. March 9, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J