The applicant, convicted under Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, sought revision of his sentence. Both the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction for selling adulterated cottonseed oil. The applicant argued procedural lapses, including the absence of a key panch witness and delays in prosecution, but the court rejected these claims. Due to the applicant's health, the court released him on probation for one year, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tarak Nath Kesari v. State of West Bengal.

1. Conviction and Appeal:

   • The applicant was convicted for selling adulterated cottonseed oil, violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
   • The trial and appellate courts sentenced the applicant to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000.

2. Prosecution Case:

   • The Food Inspector collected a sample of cottonseed oil from the applicant’s grocery shop on 07.08.1992. The sample was found non-conforming to the prescribed standards.
   • The applicant's sample was analyzed by both the State and Central Food Laboratories, both confirming adulteration.

3. Applicant's Defense:

   • The applicant challenged the panchnama, arguing that the panch witness had died, and another was not examined.
   • He also alleged a demand for a bribe and questioned the delay in prosecution.

4. Court's Findings:

   • The absence of a second panch witness was deemed immaterial as the complainant proved the memorandum panchnama.
   • The delay in prosecution and the applicant's right to test the sample was refuted based on Section 13(2) of the Act, noting the applicant's failure to exercise his right timely.
   • Allegations of bribery were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

5. Reduction of Sentence & Probation:

   • The applicant requested leniency due to health issues and past good conduct.
   • The court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tarak Nath Kesari, applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, releasing the applicant on probation for one year.

1. Judgment under Challenge:

   • The applicant challenged convictions from the Judicial Magistrate First Class and Additional Sessions Judge for selling adulterated cottonseed oil.

2. Prosecution Case:

   • Sample collection and testing were conducted per legal standards, with the sample found adulterated according to Item No. A.17.02 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

3. Applicant’s Defense on Panch Witnesses:

   • The applicant argued that Section 10(7) of the Act was violated due to the absence of a second panch witness. The court dismissed this argument.

4. Bribery Allegations:

   • The applicant claimed the complainant demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000. However, no supporting evidence was provided.

5. Delay in Prosecution:

   • The applicant argued that the delay deprived him of timely testing. The court held that the applicant did not utilize his right under Section 13(2) of the Act to have the sample analyzed in time.

6. Legal Provisions Discussed:

   • The court examined the provisions of Sections 10(7), 11, 13(2), 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

7. Sentence & Probation:

   • While the court maintained the conviction, it invoked the Probation of Offenders Act due to the applicant's health, granting probation for one year.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:

  • Section 7(i) read with Section 16: Offense for selling adulterated food.
  • Section 10(7): Procedure for panch witnesses during food sample collection.
  • Section 11: Procedure for collecting and sending food samples for testing.
  • Section 13(2): Right to request sample analysis by the Central Food Laboratory.

• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:

  • Section 4: Power to release convicted individuals on probation in suitable cases.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court upheld the conviction, dismissing the procedural lapses raised by the applicant. However, the applicant was granted probation due to his poor health and subsequent good conduct, based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of applying the Probation of Offenders Act even in cases with minimum sentencing requirements.

Subjects:

Criminal Revision, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Probation of Offenders Act

Food Adulteration, Conviction, Probation, Health Issues,