RAM BABU GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 24-5-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 30-8-1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Special Court, Shahjahanpur convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional. Government Advocate.

(3.) THE offence in the case before the Supreme Court had occurred on March 13, 1976 before the Amending Act came into force. THE Supreme Court observed that under the un-amended Act it was not man datory to impose the minimum sentence. This decision therefore, not applicable to the offence which occurred after the Amending Act came into force. Since the legislation has done away with the discre tion of the Courts to award either sentence of imprisonment or fine and minimum sentence has been prescribed, the Courts have been left with no discretion but to award minimum or any sentence up to maximum limit prescribed. In my opinion, if the legislation requires that on an of fence being proved at least minimum sen tence of imprisonment has to be awarded and the Courts cannot overlook the legislative mandate and award sentence of fine only though on enquiry it may feel justified to take lenient view. However, Quirts can convert sentence of rigorous imprisonment into sentence of simple imprisonment.