IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision Nos. 26 of 2003 Decided on : 20th August, 2009 Trilok Chand 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. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.2003 of learned Sessions Judge, whereby dismissing the appeal of the revision petitioner against the judgment dated 8.5.2001 of trial Magistrate, conviction of the petitioner for offence, under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, has been maintained, but the sentence has been reduced from six months imprisonment to three months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. Facts that led to the trial and conviction of the petitioner may be noticed. On 19.1.2000 PW-1 Ms. Bhavita Tandon, Food Inspector, visited the business premises of the petitioner in village Bhareri, District Hamirpur, and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… found some packets of Rewari meant for sale. The packets contained 700 grams of Rewari, each. PW-1 Ms. Bhavita Tandon purchased three packets of Rewari on payment of Rs.60/- and wrapped those packets, separately, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. One of the packets was sent to Public Analyst, who opined that though the food stuff was not adulterated, it was misbranded, on account of the month and the year of manufacture of Rewari having not been mentioned on the packets. Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence of misbranding. 3. Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. Petitioner appealed against the judgment of the trial Court. Learned Sessions Judge has upheld his conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General. 5. First submission, which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that non-mentioning of the month and the year of manufacture of a food article is an offence, within the meaning of clause (e) of Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and that …3… the said Rule has been struck down by the Supreme Court in Dwarka Nath and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1971 SC 1844. The Rule, which had been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, reads as follows: “Rule 32: Contents of the label- Unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on every label: xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (e) a batch number or code number either in Hindi or English numericals or alphabets or in combination. 6. In the present case violation is not of clause (e) of Rule 32, but of clause (f) of Rule 32 which reads as follows: “Rule 32: Contents of the label- Unless otherwise provided in these rules there shall be specified on every label: xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (f) the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or packed. 7. Since clause (f) of Rule 32 has not been struck down, argument advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner is rejected. …4… 8. Next submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that provision of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, had not been complied with. A bare reading of Section 13(2) of the Act shows that it applies in the case of adulterated food and not in a case where the allegation is of misbranding. Hence, this contention is also rejected. 9. Last submission made by the learned counsel is that leniency may be shown in the matter of award of sentence. The offence committed by the petitioner is punishable with minimum prescribed sentence of six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. Learned Sessions Judge has reduced the sentence to three months imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, though he could not have done so, as the minimum prescribed sentence is six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-. No further leniency can be shown. 10. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition is dismissed. August 20, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J