Rai Singh vs State And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 151 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) Rai Singh has filed this revision petition against his conviction under Section 7 read with S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and the sentence of S.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to undergo further S.I. for three months.

(2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner Rai Singh was running a Kiryana shop at premises No. 1A/2 Underhill Road, Delhi and was keeping different articles including red chillies for sale. On 5th September, 1973 Food Inspector S.D. Sharma visited the aforesaid shop and found the petitioner displaying different articles for sale. He was unable to produce any license for running the said business. Food Inspector S.D. Sharma after disclosing his identity and intention of purchasing a sample of red chillies for analysis purchased 450 grams of chillies for Rs. 2.70 P. The purchased chillies were put in six dry and clean bottles making three sets of two bottles each. These were duly fastened and sealed as per the rules and relevant documents were prepared at the spot. One set of the sealed bottles was handed over to the petitioner while another was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The sample was analysed by the Public Analyst on 14th September, 1973 and vide report dated 18th September 1973 he opined that the sample was adulterated due to the presence of insects infestation and 2.5 percent rotten chillies. It is after the receipt of this report that a complaint was filed against the petitioner.

(3) The petitioner was convicted under Sec. 7 with S. 16 of the Act and was sentenced to S.I. for six months with a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to undergo further S.I. for three months for selling adulterated chillies and to a fine of Rs. 200.00 or in default to undergo S.I. for one month for running the business without a license and thereby infringing Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 1979.

(4) These judgment and order were challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal. This appeal was disposed of by a Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on 5th September, 1979 when it was accepted in part. The conviction and sentence for running the business without a license was set aside but the judgment and order convicting the petitioner under S. 7 read with S. 16 of the Act for the sale of adulterated chilly powder were maintained.

(5) Being not satisfied with his conviction and sentence the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(6) I have heard Shri Bipin Behari Lal learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.R. Monga learned counsel for respondent No. 2/MCD. I have also carefully gone through the records.

(7) After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not challenge the order of conviction recorded by the trial court for the sale of chillies found to be adulterated which finding has been upheld by the appellate court. Even otherwise I have gone through the statements of the witnesses and the records besides the judgment of the two courts and find that the order of conviction is based on cogent evidence. The findings of the courts below holding the petitioner guilty under Sec. 7 read with S. 16 of the Act are correct.

(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for leniency. He has submitted that this incident is of 5th September, 1973 which resulted in conviction of the petitioner on 24th April, 1979. He has also submitted that the petitioner is now aged about 76 years and has suffered protracted trial He has also submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner could be awarded sentence less than the minimum sentence prescribed for reasons and that these are the reasons on the basis of which the petitioner may be considered for leniency.

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Satish Kumar v. State etc. (Cr. R. 190 of 1977) in which in similar circumstances the petitioner was allowed the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and a sum of Rs. 1000.00 was ordered to be paid towards the costs of the proceedings.

(10) Perusal of the file shows that on 26th February 1974 the on which the petitioner was examined under Sec. 342 Cr.P.C. he had given his age as 59 years. There is nothing to controvert this claim of the petitioner. On calculation the age of the petitioner, thus, would be 76 years at this time. Considering all the facts and circumstances, I am clearly of the view that ends of justice would be met if instead of sending the petitioner to jail at this stage he is given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

(11) As a result, the petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 7 read with S. 16 of the Act is maintained. The order of sentence is, however, modified. The petitioner is directed to furnish personal bond for Rs. 5000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Acmm, New Delhi with a direction to go and receive sentence as and when called upon during that period of six months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. The bond would be furnished within a period of one month. The amount of Rs. 1000.00 is stated to have already been deposited as fine. This amount shall be considered to be towards costs of the proceedings.