ORDER G.S.N. Tripathi, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 19-2-96 passed by the Ist Add. C. J. M., Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 3565 of 1994, State v. Asharfi Lal, whereby he has held the accused guilty of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and awarded him to undergo one year's R. I. and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. On failure to pay the fine, one month's additional R. I. has been awarded and the order dated 21-10-97 passed by the Special Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 14/1996, whereby the learned appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
2. By way of this revision, the aforesaid two judgments are sought to be set aside and further requires that accused may be held innocent and acquitted.
3. Admittedly, on 9-4-88, at about 5.45 p.m., a sample of Khesari Dal was purchased by the Food Inspector and after completing the formalities on the spot, one sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Varanasi, who by his report has declared that Khesari Dal 100% is prohibited food. Thereafter, the Food Inspector completed the formalities and obtained the order for filing the complaint from the authority concerned.
4. The complainant Sri Paras Nath Singh, Food Inspector was examined. Other witnesses were not examined as the public witnesses did not co-operate.
5. The accused simply denied the allegations against him and has additionally stated that Khesari Dal in question was meant for animal food and not for human consumption and that is not an offence.
6. Sri Paras Nath Singh, Food Inspector has clearly stated that he enquired from the accused as to for what purpose the Khesari Dal was being exposed for sale. He said that it was for human consumption. He did not say that the accused said that the Food in question was meant for animals and not for human being. Thus the accused admitted that he was selling the disputed food and had exposed the same for the same purpose and further said that the same was sold to the Food Inspector.
7. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty accordingly and convicted and sentenced him as noted above after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and it has not been shown to me that any of the legal provisions has been violated or ignored by the learned trial Court.
8. The learned appellate Court also analysed the evidence on the record threadbare and came to the same conclusion that it was a prohibited item i.e. Khesari Dal, which was being sold by the accused as human food.
9. It was urged that there is no public witness in support of the prosecution case. It is well-known and recently observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in these days no public witness wants to be a witness against any criminal, just to avoid his own skin and make himself free from all botherations. Under the circumstance, the solitary evidence of the Food Inspector is sufficient for recording conviction against the accused as it inspires confidence and as it is also admitted by the accused that he was selling the Khesari Dal, which was purchased by the Food Inspector from him. He has not alleged that any legal formalities were not observed. The burden to prove that it was an animal food and not meant for human consumption, was on the accused. But he has examined none.
10. The learned appellate Court after a close scrutiny and analysis found that the accused had committed the crime aforesaid. His observations are also supported by the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further they are based on factual existence of the evidence on the record. Under these circumstances, no objection can be taken against the order and judgment passed by the learned appellate Court even.
11. Lastly, the learned Counsel pressed that] some leniency may be shown in the sentence as! the occurrence took place long back i.e. on 9-4-88 and ever since the Sword of Damocles has been hanging-upon the accused. I find very little force in this submission.
12. Now a days, it is difficult to find any food, which is not adulterated. The persons like the accused are playing with the health of the nation. They are flattening their pockets at the public cost. So the time has come when the Courts must cry from the house top "Thus far and no further". I am conscious of the fact as urged by the learned Counsel for the State that too much leniency has been shown to the accused in the past and that is why they have been openly committing the crime by selling the prohibited food. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the accused.
13. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I find that some leniency may be shown to the accused, as it is his first crime. There is no evidence to show that he repeated the same after the date of occurrence i.e. 9-4-88.
14. Thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed substantially and it is accordingly done so, with the modification that instead of one year's R. I. the accused shall undergo 9 month's R. I. only. The order regarding the payment of fine is kept intact. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is to be held with the modification as above. If the accused is in Jail so far so good if not, the C. J. M. concerned shall get him arrested and sent him to jail to serve out the sentence as above