DAHYABHAI SHANABHAI RATHOD Vs. RAMCHANDRA SAKALCHAND PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In food adulteration cases why impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ? Why this misplaced sympathy ? While answering the aforesaid question it is also necessary to resolve the problem as to whether the Judge or Bench of Judges issuing show cause notice for enhancement of the sentence should or should not hear the same ?

(2.) The questions arise in the backdrop of the facts that follow: The petitioner is the original accused of Criminal Case No. 87 of 1982 of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. VI) Ahmedabad. It was alleged that he sold cow-milk to one Mr. R. S. Patel Food Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 24/06/1982 The said sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector in the presence of panchas and necessary formalities regarding dividing the sample packing and sealing the sample were also done in presence of panchas. The sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst who on analysis found that there was fat deficiency in the milk and 40 of the additional water was detected. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the complaint was filed against the petitioner-accused. The Food Inspector himself was examined and panch was also examined in the case. On appreciation of evidence and on hearing the parties the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sec. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and ordered him to undergo sentence of three months S. I. and to pay a file of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment of fine directed to undergo further S. I. for two months. The petitioner-accused preferred appeal in the Court of City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad who after hearing the parties dismissed the same as per the judgment and order dated 8/10/1983 The petitioner-accused has preferred this revision application and has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid orders.

(3.) It is contended that the report of the public analyst is not in the prescribed form inasmuch as it is in two parts i. e. at Ex. 8 and Ex. 9. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the second part which is at Ex. 9 is not in the prescribed form and unless the second part is proved by examining the public analyst the same could not have been made the basis of conviction.