RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by Ram Gopal has been admitted on the point of sentence only. Revisionist Ram Gopal had a sweetmeat shop in Chuchela Kalan P. S. Bachraun District Moradabad. On 6th September, 1981 Food Inspector purchased sample of colour Barfi from his shop. Public Aalyst found that the sample was colour with coal tar dye. Since the colour was not approved colour permitted by the rules, Barfi was found adulterated. The two lower court did not record any finding that the colouring was to an extent injurious to health. It is no doubt, true that the coal tar dye creates toxic effect. The trial Magistrate convicted by the revisionist with offence of selling adulterated barfi, a food item, under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16 (1-A) and sentenced to him to rigorous imprisonment to two years and fine of Rs. 2000. 00. Lower appellate court confirmed the conviction of the revisionist but reduced his jail sentence to 6 months only. In this court the revision was admitted on the point of sentence only. It is evident that revisionist is a sweet meat seller of rural area. Offence was committed more than 8 years ago. Adulter ation was due to coal tar dye. It is a matter common experience that people both of urban and rural areas are not yet aware that colouring in food articles may be by coal tar dye which may create toxic effect. Consumers want to purchase attractive food articles and to meet the demand of consumers the sweetmeat sellers colour the sweets by adding colour to the sweets. Sweetmeat sellers do not get any extra profit. Their sales may, however, increase due to their sweets being more attractive. If the general public is educated for not consuming colour sweets, the sweetmeat sellers will be deterred from adding colour to the sweets. More punishment of a few sweetmeat sellers for using prohibited colours would not be sufficient to prevent colouring of the sweets. What is required is public information. It may be added that in rural area the sweetmeat sellers are hardly aware of the facts that some colours are prohibited being coal tar dye. It is true that for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, mensrea is not necessary. But absence of mensria can be a good ground for awarding lessor punishment. It may further be added that the offence took place more than 8 years ago. I hold that there are special and adequate reasons for awarding lessor punishment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500. 00 under the proviso of Section 16 (1) of the Act. In the result this revision is partly allowed and sentence of the revisionist is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 500. 00. Revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He should be taken into custody for serving out the sentence. A copy of the judgment shall be sent to the Secretary, Medical and Health Depart ment Government of U. P. with the recommen dation that the government may launch a compaign for educating the people not to use coloured sweets. Revision Partly Allowed. .