1.0 Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and as the learned advocate for the applicant original accused does not challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the applicant for the offence under Sections 7(ii)and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rule 33 of the Rules punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act confirmed by the learned Appellate Court and has requested to consider the sentence only with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties,, the present application is taken up for final hearing today.
2.0 It is not in dispute that applicant accused was prosecuted for breach of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rule 33 of the Rules punishable under Section 16 of the Act and by judgment and order dated 15.4.2004 the learned JMFC, Chikhali has convicted the applicant original accused for breach of Section 7 of the Act r/w Rule 33 of the Rules and convicting the applicant for the offence under Section 16 of the Act and directing the applicantoriginal accused to undergo sentence one year SIR with fine of Rs.2000/ and in default to undergo 30 days S.I. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Chikhali dated 15.4.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.99 of 2000 has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari by his impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2011 so far as the petitioner herein original accused no.2 is concerned. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner hereinoriginal accused has preferred present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3.0 Shri N.V. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for Shri Shah, learned advocate for the applicant original accused no.2 has stated at the bar under the instructions from the applicant that he does not challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below convicting and sentencing the applicant for the offence for which he was tried and has been convicted. However, has requested to consider to impose lessor punishment i.e. minimum which is provided under Section 16 of the Act i.e.
three months. He has stated at the bar that the goods in question i.e. Tea was predominately sold in the rural and the triable area of District Navsari in which by and large normally Gujarati Language is used and as such particulars of the delcarant on the label was in the Gujarati language. It is further submitted that in fact there is no allegation that the tea which was being sold was adulterated. That it was bona fide mistake on the part of the applicant in not specifying the label in English or Hindi and as soon as the petitioner came to know about the correct position of law and the complaint has been filed the petitioner has immediately taken the corrective measures and is now following the Act and Rules strictly. Therefore, it is requested to reduce the sentence to three months S.I wit the fine imposed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Shri Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant under the instruction of his client has stated at the bar that if the request made by the applicant is considered the applicant shall surrender before the concerned Court to undergo remaining sentence to be imposed by this Court on 20/9/2012. It is reported that the applicant has already undergone approximately 21 days.
4.0 Shri Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has requested to pass appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering Section 16 of the Act.
5.0 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact that the applicant is now not challenging the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 7(ii)and 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rule 33 of the Rules punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for which he has been convicted and considering the fact that there does not appear to be any mala fide intention on the part of the applicant and when the label was in Gujarati language and as the goods were predominately to be sold in the South Gujarat where normally Gujarati language is used and considering the fact that this is the first offence committed by the applicant and that there are no other allegations of adulteration and that immediately on filing of the complaint it is reported that the applicant has taken corrective measures and is now following the provision of Food Adulteration Act and Rules in its true spirit, the prayer of the applicant to reduce the sentence deserves consideration. Considering Section 16 of the Act, more particularly, considering proviso to subsection (1) of Section 16 in case for the offences with respect to the article of food which is misbranded within meaning of subclause (a) of clause (ia) of Section 23 or under clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 24, for any adequate and special reasons mentioned in the judgment imposed the sentence of imprisonment in a term which shall not be less than three months to which may extend to 2 years and with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.500/. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it appears to the Court that if the applicant is sentence to undergo minimum three months for the offences for which he has been convicted by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court it will meet the end of justice and the order of fine which is imposed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is not required to be interfered and is to be maintained. It is reported that applicant is already paid fine as ordered by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
6.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, present Criminal Revision Application succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Chikhali dated 15.4.2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 99 of 2000 confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari by impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed in Crimial Appeal No.7 of 2004 are hereby modified to the extent of imposing sentence of three months S.I instead of one year S.I as imposed by the learned trial Court. Meaning thereby by maintaining the conviction the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the applicant is directed to undergo three month SI with fine imposed by the learned trial Court (which is reported to have been paid) for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for which he has been convicted by the learned trial Court confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Applicant to surrender before the concerned Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence (as it is reported that applicant is already undergone sentence of approximately 21 days) on 26.9.2012 as agreed. Direct service is permitted.
kaushik sd/ ( M. R. Shah, J. )