Millu Mal Vs. the State of Rajasthan

prevention of food adulteration act 1954 - section 7/16--sentence-accused 69 years old-not previous convict--'suffered for a week--held, sentence is reduced to already undergone & fine is increased from rs. 1000 to rs. 2000/-.;the petitioner has not been previously convicted for any offence under the act and that the petitioner is about 69 years of old and he is in jail since 24th april 1984. i consider it a fit case in which the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, but the fine imposed on him is increased from rs. 1003/- to rs. 2000/-.;revision partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....and tin sample of that flour was taken by the food inspector and on chemical examination, the said sample was found to be adulterated.2. shri dave has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 7/15 of the article. i have also examined the findings of the courts blows and find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the courts. shri dave has, however, submitted that taking onto consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment of already undergone by him. in this connection, the submission of shri dave was that the petitioner has not been previously convicted for any offence under the act and that the petitioners is about 69 years of old and he is in jail since 24th april, 1984. shri dave has submitted that this case relates to the period of prior to the amendment of the act by act no. 34 of 1976 and that under the provisions of section 16 as it stood at the relevant time, it was permissible to the court to award a lesser sentence for adequate and special reasons. according to shri dave reasons are sufficient to impose a lesser sentence. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances referred to above specially the age of the petitioner and the fact that he has not been previously convicted of any offence under the act, i consider it a fit case in which the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, but the fine imposed on him is increased from rs. 1000/- to rs. 2010/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1-1/2 months.3. in the result the revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above.