MOTI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The conviction and sentence hive been confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The prosecution case against the petitioner is that on 21-1-1965, the petitioner had kept laddoos for sale, a sample of which was purchased by the Food Inspector and sent for analysis. The Public Analyst found that the sample of laddoos was adulterated inasmuch as an un-permittcd colour was used in the" preparation of these laddoos. The conviction of the petitioner itself has not been challenged and the learned counsel for the petitioner only pleaded for a reduction in the sentence.

(3.) It was pointed out that the learned Magistrate had invoked the provisions of the Act before its amendment in 1964 when the Act had provided for enhanced punishment in cases of 2nd and 3rd offences by the same person. Under section 16 of the Act before its amendment, the sentence provided for the first offence was imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both; the sentence provided for a second offence was imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and fine; and for a third offence it was imprisonment for a term which may extend to four years and fine. Sec. 16 before its amendment also provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, the imprisonment for a second offence shall not be less thin one year and the fine shall not be less than Rs. 2,000.00 and for a third offence, the imprisonment shall not be less than two years and the fine shall not be less than Rs. 3,000.00. Under section 16 of the Act after its amendment, the enhanced penalty for the second and the third offences has been abolished and a uniform punishment has been provided for the first as well as the subsequent offences. The learned Magistrate has no doubt invoked the provisions of section 16 before the amendment. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has cited the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shyam Lal Vs. State, A.I.R. 1968 Allahabad 392, 1973 FAC 13. That was also a case under the Food Adulteration Act and whereas the offence itself was committed before the amendment of section 16, the Court had convicted the accused after the amended section 16 had come into force. It was held as follows:-