1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta dated 20/11/2009 in Criminal Case No. 46/1992 in so far as not imposing any sentence upon the respondent-original accused no. 2 while convicting the original accused, inclusive of the respondent-original accused no. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
2. The respondent-original accused no. 2, being a manufacturer firm alongwith other accused persons, was charged and tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta in Criminal Case No. 46/1992 for the offence punishable under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. It is to be noted that the respondent- original accused no. 2 was arraigned as an accused as a manufacturer and original accused nos. 3/1 and 3/2 were arraigned as an accused as partners of the respondent-original accused no. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta has acquitted original accused no. 1, however, has convicted respondents nos. 2, 3/1 and 3/2 for breach of offence under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, while imposing the sentence the learned trial Court has imposed the sentence only upon original accused nos. 3/1 and 3/2 and has not passed any order of sentence or fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2.
2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta dated 20/11/2009 in Criminal Case No. 46/1992 in not imposing any sentence upon the respondent-original accused no. 2, the applicant-original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.
3. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant-original complainant has vehemently submitted that once the learned Magistrate has convicted the respondent- original accused no. 2, the learned Magistrate ought to have imposed the sentence of fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2. It is further submitted by Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant-original complainant that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the fact that the manufacturer firm-original accused no. 2 has also been convicted and the liability of the firm can be considered to be equal as partners and thereby the learned Judge ought to have imposed the sentence upon the respondent-original accused no. 2 also. It is further submitted by Ms. C.M Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant-State that considering Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while convicting the respondent-original accused no. 2 the learned Judge ought to have imposed the sentence of fine. It is submitted that by not imposing any sentence/fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2 while convicting the respondent-original accused no. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the learned Judge has committed a grave error and/or illegality and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Revision Application and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate of not imposing the sentence/fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2.
4. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent-original accused no. 2.
5. Heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the impugned judgment and order and the entire evidence on record from the Record and Proceedings received from the learned trial Court. It is not in dispute that as such respondents nos. 3/1 and 3/2 are partners of the respondent-original accused no. 2 and they have been held guilty for breach of offence under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act and Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, while passing the final order and imposing the sentence, the learned trial Court has imposed the sentence only upon respondents nos. 3/1 and 3/2 and has not imposed any sentence/fine upon respondent no. 2. Considering Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, sentence is also required to be imposed upon the Company/partnership firm. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the learned Magistrate has not imposed any sentence/fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2, though the respondent- original accused no. 2 has been convicted for breach of offence under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta dated 20/11/2009 in Criminal Case No. 46/1992 deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta dated 20/11/2009 in Criminal Case No. 46/1992 is hereby modified to the extent of imposing the sentence of fine upon the respondent-original accused no. 2 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed upon the respondent-original accused no. 2 while convicting the respondent-original accused no. 2 for breach of offence under Sections 2(i)(a)(c)(j)(l) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Rule 32 and Section 16(1)(1A) of the Food Adulteration Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji