Full Judgment
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 3-7-1985 passed by Shri S.C. Srivastava, the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1984, Charan v. State U.P. and another, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the J.M. Special Court, Economic Offences, Jhansi Sri A.K. Srivastava in Criminal Case No. 669 of 1984, State v. Charan under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, PS. Raksa, District Jhansi, whereby, the accused-revisionist has been convicted of the offence under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months.
2. The prosecution case was that the accused-revisionist was carrying cows milk for sale. The food inspector took sample from him and observing necessary formalities sent the sample to the public analyst who found that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 6% and deficient in non-fatty solids by 25%.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. The learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the conviction of the accused-revisionist on the ground that the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint made by the Food Inspector beyond the period of limitation allowed u/S. 468, Cr. P.C. He claims that the maximum punishment for the offence in question being only 3 years R.I., Under Section. 468, Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section. (2) after expiry of the period of limit on. Sub-Section. 2(a) provides that the period of mitation shall be 3 years if an offence is punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 3 years. This plea as not open to be taken at this stage. It was supported to be taken at the stage when the Magistrate was taking cognizance or at the stage when he accused appeared before the Magistrate owning summoned. No such plea has been taken t any stage at the trial or even at any stage during the appeal before the Sessions Judge. Moreoer, there is nothing to show at this stage that the complaint was filed beyond the period of 3 years torn the date of the offence. So this contention f the learned counsel for the revisionist fails.
4. The learned counsel has prayed for the benefit of Ist proviso to Section. 16(1) of the Prevision of Food Adulteration Act pointing out that was a case falling in Clause (1) of the first proviso. It relates to the primary food which is adulerated due to human agency and further pointing out that in this case the occurrence related to 3-12-1981 and that the revisionist was on bail from this Court in this revision. Under this proviso, the Court has got the jurisdiction to pass a lesser sentence of 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-. The prayer of the learned counsel is accepted and to this extent alone, the r revision succeeds.
5. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-revisionist for the offence Under Section. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as awarded by the learned Magistrate and as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded is reduced to 3 months R.I. and the sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500 and in default of payment of fine, the accused-revisionist shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The accused-revisionist is on bail from this Court . His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender to his bail bonds forthwith to serve out his remaining sentence in accordance with law.
7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Magistrate concerned by Fax/registered post A.D. forthwith who shall issue warrant of arrest of the accused revisionist Charan and got him arrested and consigned to the District Jail to serve out his sentence in accordance with law unless in the meantime he surrenders in compliance of the order of this Court. The compliance report shall be submitted by the Magistrate concerned to this Court within 15 days from today. The revision shall be listed for orders before this Court on 13-4-1999 for orders along with the compliance report sent by the Magistrate.