STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANUBHAI GOKALDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the order dated 31-7-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad in Criminal Case No. 25 of 1985. There were five accused in this Criminal case, accused No. 1 being the concerned firm (Pedhi) known as M/s. Pravinchandra Kanubhai and Brothers. Accused No. 2 was Kanubhai Gokaldas Shah and accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were Pravinchandra Mohanlal Shah, Champaklal Gokaldas Shah and Rameshchandra Mohanlal Shah respectively. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad by order dated 31-7-1989 held that concerned firm, i.e., Accused No. 1 was guilty of the offences under Sec. 7(V) and Sec. 16(1-A)(i) and accordingly the firm was fined a sum of Rs. 1,000.00. Accused No. 2 was also convicted for the offences under Sec. 7(V) and Sec. 16(1-A)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and was sentenced to the punishment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been acquitted.

(2.) The State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence and it has been submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have imposed at least the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act but having convicted respondent [Accused No. 2] namely, Kanubhai Gokaldas Shah, he has been sentenced with the punishment only till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) The concerned Food Inspector visited the Pedhi of the partnership firm, i.e., accused No. 1 and after giving notice under Rule 12 purchased 750 gms. of the wheat from the bags which were placed in the shop for sale to the customers and which were given out to be in good condition. The Food Inspector prepared the sample in accordance with the Rules and sent the same to the Public Analyst and also informed the concerned local health authority. The Public Analyst sent a report to the local health authority and since the sample was not found to be according to Rules the sanction was accorded to file complaint against the accused persons and thereafter the complaint was filed in the Court against the accused persons for the offences under Sec. 7(V) and Sec. 16(1-A)(i). For the aforesaid offences the plea of the accused was recorded and the accused persons denied the offence. After the trial in accordance with law the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, having considered the evidence and the material available on record with reference to Sec. 2(ia)(f), Sec. 7(V) and Sec. 16(1-A)(i) found the firm to be guilty for the offences under Sec. 7(V) and Sec. 16(1-A)(i) and imposed fine of Rs. 1,000.00 on the firm and accused No. 2, i.e., present respondent in this Appeal was also held to be guilty for the offence under Secs. 7(V) and 16(1-A)(i) and was sentenced to the punishment till the rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, while accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were acquitted.