ROSHAN LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 26-9-1984 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-5-1984 passed by the Corporation Magistrate, kanpur convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adul teration Act and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000.

(2.) DESPITE the list being revised none appeared for the revisionist. Heard learned Additional Government Advo cate and perused the record and memo of revision.

(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 offences 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 maxi mum limit prescribed. In my opinion, if the legislation requires that on an offence being proved at least minimum sentence of im prisonment has to be awarded and the Courts cannot overlook the legislative man date and award sentence of fine only though on equity it may feel justified to take lenient view. However, Courts can convert sen tence of rigorous imprisonment into sen tence of simple imprisonment.