THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.372 of 2011 JUDGMENT: On the basis of the complaint given by the Food Inspector, Nizamabad Division-II, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7(i) and 2(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, alleging that on 20.01.2009, at about 1.30 p.m., when he inspected Sai Srinivasa Kirana shop at Gandhari village, represented by the accused and after disclosing his identity and after service of Form No.6, purchased 600 grams of Tea powder which was divided into thee parts, sealed, labelled and packed as per the procedure and sent one part to the Public analyst, who opined that the same does not conform to the standards as the sample contains iron fillings and is therefore adulterated. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the said offence and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 28.09.2010, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. The same was questioned by the accused by filing Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2010 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, who by his judgment, dated 21.01.2011, while concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court, but, however, requested this Court to take a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused has been in jail for more than a month. In the light of the said submission of the learned counsel, this Court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 21.01.2011 and immediately, the accused was taken into custody. Therefore, admittedly, as on today, he has been in jail for about one month. As the sentence imposed on the accused by both the Courts below is only three months and the petitioner has already undergone a substantive part of it i.e., one month, this Court is of the view that a lenient view can be taken. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 16(1) (a)(i), 7(i)and (2)(ia)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, imposed on the petitioner-accused by both the Courts below, is reduced to that of the period already undergone by him, while maintaining the sentence of fine. Except the said modification in the sentence of imprisonment, in all other aspects, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. As the petitioner is in jail, the Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the jail authorities and the jail authorities shall release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other crime. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 25th January 2011 dr