STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. FULAD T DAAMEHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been evidently referred to us for deciding the question whether the High Court can issue a suo motu notice of enhancement of sentence after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the view, which we have taken, of the case it is not necessary to decide that question.

(2.) The accused in this case were prosecuted for offences under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant before charge, actually framed a charge against the accused of offences under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and he framed a charge under section 7(1) read with section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against accused No. 4, which is a firm of which accused Nos. 1 to 3 are partners.

(3.) After the charge was read over and explained to the accused, accused No. 2 pleaded guilty to the charge. Accused No. 3 also pleaded guilty to the charge and he added that the carbonated water manufactured by this firm for human consumption contained bacteria, although that was no part of the charge.