GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by special leave against the judgment of the High Court in a taken-up case under S.439 fo the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the sentence of fine imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patiala for an offence under S.16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 hereinafter called 'the Act' - was enhanced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default the respective appellants were ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 1/2 months. In all these cases the appellants were charged under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act for selling without licence articles of food, such as, milk, sweetmeats, tea, curd, biscuits, chappati, ice-cream, dal, bhajji. A separate charge was framed against each of the appellants on respective dates and on the same day they pleaded guilty to the charge and were forthwith sentenced to pay a fine. In Appeals Nos. 51 and 56 of 1969 the appellants were fined Rs.30/- each on August 10, 1967; in Appeals Nos.52 to 55 and 59 of 1969 they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/- each on August 19, 1967, and in Appeal No. 57 of 1969 a sentence of Rs.40/- was imposed on June 26, 1967. In default of payment of fine in all these cases the appellants were directed to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The reason for imposing the light sentences in all these cases except in Appeal No. 57 of 1969 was that the appellants had made "voluntary confessions" while in Appeal No. 57 of 1969 the reason given was firstly the spontaneous nature of the confession which showed that the accused was in repentant frame of mind and secondly that he was petty shopkeeper and a heavy punishment may prove harsh.

(2.) The High Court enhanced the sentence because under Section 16(1) of the Act the appellants were punishable with imprisonment for a term which may not be less than six months but which may extent to six years and with a fine which may not be less than Rs.1000/-, and though a discretion was given to the Court to impose a lesser sentence under the proviso to the said sub-section if it is satisfied that there is "any adequate and special reasons", the Magistrate had failed to give valid reasons for giving lenient sentences. The High Court further observed that whether there existed some adequate or special reasons is a question of fact in each case, but in the cases before it no reasons much less any adequate and special reasons have been mentioned in the judgment of the Trial Court for imposing a lesser sentence as required by the proviso. In this view the orders of the Trial Court were held not to have complied with requirements of the proviso for imposing a lesser sentence.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the appellants before the High Court that the appellants were found selling articles of food without a licence and not adulterated articles of food and therefore, a lesser sentence may be imposed on them. This contention was rejected because in the view of the learned Judge, selling of articles of food without a licence as required under sub-r. (5) of R.50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is no less serious than selling adulterated articles of food. It is so because granting a licence for manufacture, stock or exhibition of any of the articles of food in respect of which a licence is required, the licensing authority shall inspect the premises and satisfy itself that it is free from sanitary defects, and the applicant for the licence has to make such alterations in the premises as may be required by the licensing authority for the grant of a licence. When a licence is granted the licensee must observe the conditions of the licence such as preparing articles of food under hygienic conditions and keeping them covered in clean containers protected against dust, disease-bearing flies and other noxious elements.