FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. CHAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision taken up suo mote by the High court. Notice was issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence imposed on him ought not to be enhanced and the accused, pursuant to the notice, has appeared through counsel. Counsel has been heard The accused was convicted of an offence under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs 500/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. THIS was by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Kozhikod e in C. C. 89 of 1976. The buffalo milk sold by the accused to the Food Inspector was found not to conform to the standards prescribed for buffalo milk under the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955, The Public Analyst's report disclosed that the sample of milk contained only 5 percent milk fat and 7. 6 percent milk solids-not-fat and as such did not conform to the standard. The accused appealed against the conviction. The learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikod e confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The sentence of fine was maintained. It may also be mentioned that the sale of the buffalo milk to the Food Inspector was on 22 11976, prior to the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act 34 of 1976. It is therefore, S. 16 as it stood prior to the said amendment that applies to the case.

(2.) THIS court noticed, during the calendar revision of judgments, that the sentence in the case was below the minimum prescribed in s. 16 (1) of the Act which provided that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall not be less than six months. No circumstance calling for the application of the proviso to S. 16 (1) was disclosed in the judgment of the chief Judicial Magistrate and also that of the Sessions Judge. That is the reason why this court took up the matter in suo mote revision. It must be stated that this is not an isolated instance. There are a number of cases where the Magistrates trying offences under S. 16 (1) (a) had imposed sentences below the minimum prescribed without showing proper justification for reducing the sentence below the minimum. Counsel in some of those cases which came to the notice of this court were heard since a common question arose.

(3.) THAT the article of food which is the subject of the charge here was adulterated, as understood under sub-clause (1) of clause (i)of S 2 of the Act has been found by both the courts. The offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of S 16. Hence the minimum sentence of 6 months provided under S 16 (1) could have been reduced further by the court only if the court found adequate and special reasons and also mentioned such reasons in the judgment of the court.