THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1898 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ibrahimpatnm, R.R.District, in C.C.No.194 of 1999 for the offence punishable under section 16 (i) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.28 were marked. The trial court, having analysed the said evidence, found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The said judgment dated 05.08.2003 was questioned by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2003 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District by his judgment dated 10.12.2003 while confirming the said findings given by the trial court dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this court and filed the present revision. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 08.12.1998 at 1.00 PM the complainant – Food Inspector visited the kirana stores being run by the petitioner in the name and style of M/s.Yadagiri Kirana Stores situated at D.No.5-6, Main Road, Tukkuguda village of Maheshwaram Mandal where the petitioner was conducting business. Suspecting that the stocks available in the said shop are adulterated, the complainant purchased some samples from the petitioner and after following due procedure sent those samples to the analyst for examination and report. The public analyst who examined the said samples opined that the samples are adulterated. After getting sanction for launching prosecution, the complainant filed the complaint against the petitioner for the alleged offence. 3 Heard. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this is not a fit case for interference, but, however, requested this court to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. 5 In the light of the said submissions this court looked into the record. The appeal was dismissed on 10.12.2003 and the petitioner was taken into custody on the say day and he came out of the jail by virtue of the bail granted by this court on 19.12.2003 after admitting this revision. So it is clear that the petitioner was in jail for a period of about ten days. 6 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was in jail for a period of ten days, and having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 1998, and inasmuch as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is only six months, this court is of the opinion that a lenient view may be taken. 7 Accordingly, the said sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner has already undergone. Excepting the above modification, this revision, in all other aspects is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn