STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KRUSHNMORARI RAMKRUSHNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases it seeMs that either the learned Magistrate is not aware of the seriousness of the offence the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in various decisions and is not mindful of the fact that under the provisions of law it was his duty to administer the law as per the dictates of the Parliament and to impose minimum sentence provided under the Act. It is high time that the lower Judiciary should realize that it is their duty to follow the law laid down by this Court in various decisions and to implement them.

(2.) From the shop owned by opponent No. 1 known as Anil Kirana Stores at Sevalia of Thasra Taluka the Food Inspector purchased a sample of turmeric powder in presence of panchas on 1-5-1984 at about 5-30 p.m. The sample was taken from packed tin. Opponent No. 1 produced a bill showing that the said turmeric powder was purchased from opponent No. 4. Opponents Nos. 2 3 & 5 are the partners of the firm-opponent No. 4. The complaint was filed on 5-2-1986. The Court issued summons to the opponents. On 8-4-1986 the opponents filed an application Ex. 9 wherein in the first line it is stated that they admit the offence which is registered against them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the second line it has been stated that they have not committed the alleged offence; they are poor businessmen and they have not adulterated any article and they are innocent persons. It has been further mentioned that in future they would not commit such type of offences. They prayed that mercy be shown to them as they are persons of poor strata having large family and they had no intention to commit any such offence and that it was their first offence. After receipt of the aforesaid application Ex. 9 the learned Magistrate has recorded their plea wherein a question is asked to them whether they admit the offence or not and in reply to the said question they pleaded guilty. On the same date the learned Magistrate convicted the opponents for the offence punishable under Sec. 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and imposed sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1200.00 in default three months S.I. In the judgment the learned Magistrate has observed that the accused has pleaded guilty to the offence by stating that this was their first offence and they are of poor class and they assured that in future they would not commit similar offence. He further observed that from the turmeric powder of which sample was taken adulteration was of pulse starch and of eatable colour which was not injurious to the human health and therefore he has imposed the sentence as stated above.

(3.) It seems that the learned Magistrate has not bothered to refer to Sec. 16 which provides that in such type of offences in addition to penalty to which the accused is liable under the provisions of Sec. 6 minimum sentence prescribed is six months and a fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees Under the first proviso to Sec. 16(1) for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment the Magistrate is empowered to impose sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months and a fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. Under sub-sec (1A) if the adulterant is injurious to health he is required to impose minimum imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year. The further provides that if the article of food or adulterant when consumed by any person is likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of Sec. 320 of the Indian Penal Code then the imprisonment shall not be less than three years and it may extend to term of life. Similar is the provision under sub-sec. (1B) the Act The Parliament has taken further case to see that the offenders under the Act are not release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act or under Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by adding Sec. 20AA. Apart from the aforesaid legislative mandate it seems that the learned of Magistrate has ignored the law laid down by this Court in various decisions. In the State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal 1974] 15 GLR 545. the Court has exhaustively dealt with this aspect of the matter and has pertinently observed that even law has provided that mens rea is not a necessary ingredient of the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Minds consciously work out a strategem by which at the cost of unsuspecting public. a man wants to thrive himself and in the process to play havoc with the lives of the individuals who deal with him. Such a man cannot but he dealt with under any theory of punishment other than deterrent punishment. The Court further held as under: