STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RANJITBHAI BABUBHAI SURATWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal for enhancement of the sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, on 23-11-1976 on the respondent who was original accused No. 1 in the trial Court.

(2.) The accused was charged under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the accused on the said charge and to sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Public Prosecutor, who has appeared for the Appellant-State, has submitted that the minimum penalty prescribed under section 16(1) of the said Act was six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Mr. Deshmukh urged that the learned Magistrate had been unduly lenient in sentencing the accused to simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Mr. Deshmukh urged that no adequate or special reasons had been assigned by the learned Magistrate for the undue leniency shown to the accused save and except that the accused was a young man. Mr. Deshmukh, submitted that youth by itself could not be a ground for leniency. Mr. Deshmukh, therefore, contended that a stringent penalty or atleast the minimum prescribed by the law ought to be awarded to the accused.