ORDER
D.N. Baruah, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 31-8-85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 4(4) of 1983, affirming the judgment dated 24-9-83 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat in C. R. Case No. 1375/82.
2. The case of the present petitioner is that the Food Inspector of Golaghat submitted an offence report dated 30-4-82 under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, alleging that he sold and stored for sale of adulterated cumin whole. Samples were taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner’s shop and sent to Public Analyst, Government of Assam, Guwahati, for analysis. The Public Analyst gave his report. As per the said report, the sample of cumin whole (safed jeera) was adulterated.
3. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, the Area Food Inspector, Golaghat submitted an offence report dated 30-4-82 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after obtaining sanction. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered a case. The petitioner-accused after appearance made a request to the Court for sending another sample to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for examination. As per the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, another sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory, however, it was not within the time. The Central Food Laboratory also after examination of the sample found to be adulterated, inasmuch as the extraneous matter, which included inorganic extraneous matter and seeds other than cumin seeds were found 16.7%. As per the report, the sample of cumin seeds was adulterated Under Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. During the trial two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused examined none. After examining the accused under Section 313, the Chief Judicial Magistrate delivered the judgment holding that the accused petitioner was guilty under the offence Under Section 7 and Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another six months.
It may be mentioned here that the sentence awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was the minimum as per the law.
5. The accused petitioner preferred art appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, being Criminal Appeal No. 4(4)/83. The learned Sessions Judge also after hearing the petitioner as well as the State passed judgment dated 31-8-85 dismissing the appeal and upholding and affirming the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the petitioner filed this petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction Under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. I have heard Mr. C.C. Deka for the petitioner and Mr. B. B. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor for the Opposite party. Mr. Deka learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the report of Central Food Laboratory, shows that the sample of cumin whole contained extraneous matters only 7.05% excess and other substances are within the prescribed limit, and, therefore, it cannot be said as an adulterated food.
7. Mr. Narzary has submitted that extraneous matters, which included inorganic and organic extraneous matter was 16.7% and that was far above the prescribed limit. The seeds other than cumin seeds was 12.7% though the limit prescribed under Rule A.05.09 of Appendix-B is 5-00 per cent by weight. This itself is sufficient to indicate that the sample of cumin taken from the petitioner’s shop was adulterated and the Director, Central Food Laboratory gave his opinion that the sample of cumin whole was adulterated under Section 2(ia)(m).
8. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Deka as well as Mr. Narzary. After considering the submissions I found that the samples taken by the Food Inspector from the petitioner’s shop was adulterated, and; therefore, he is guilty under Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and is liable to be convicted and sentenced as prescribed under law.
9. Mr. Deka has further submitted on the point of sentence. He stated that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence should be reduced and imposition of only fine would be adequate punishment for the offence committed by the petitioner, since the matter has been pending for the last ten years. I have also heard Mr. Narzary on this point.
10. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, minimum punishment prescribed is six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In this connection, Mr. Deka has cited a case reported in (1986) 1 GLR 273 (The State of Assam v. Ram Nafayan Basudeo). Mr. Deka has drawn my attention to paragraph 21 of the said judgment. This court while reducing the punishment observed thus:–
…However, more than eight years have elapsed since the crime was committed and nearly five years have elapsed since they were acquitted. The offence is with respect to an article of food which was insect infested. Under these circumstances for the ends of justice and crime prevention each of the respondents, namely; M/s. Ram Narayan Basudeo, Basudeo Bawri and Keshbdeo Bawri, is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each….
In this case, the accused persons were acquitted and State came before this Court and after hearing the parties, the accused persons were acquitted.
11. In the instant case, the accused petitioner was convicted by both the Courts below and the sample of Cumin (food article) were not only insect infested, but also contained 16.7% extraneous matter, which included 12.7% of seeds other than cumin seeds, that is, about 7.7% more than the prescribed limit.
12. Under the circumstances, I do not think it will be apposite to reduce the sentence, and more so, the legislature having prescribed the minimum sentence, it may not be proper for this Court to reduce the minimum prescribed limit.
In view of what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner must surrender before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, within a period of two months from today to undergo the sentence and also to pay fine if not already paid.
