THE STATE Vs. MOHAN RAMCHANDRA VERNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 1273 of 1976 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Satara for an offence punishable under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the ground that he sold to the Food Inspector, Satara, mustard seeds which were found to be adulterated within the meaning of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample sold on 16th Oct., 1975 and analysed by the Public Analyst was found to contain 0.044% of argomone seeds. The relevant R.I. requires that the mustard seeds must be wholly free from argomone seeds.

(2.) Though initially the accused contested the prosecution subsequently he pleaded guilty because he found that the receipt under which he had purchased the mustard seeds from somebody else did not bear the warranty under a signature. The learned trial Magistrate after accepting the plea of guilty and after noting that the accused was a petty trader who had purchased 3 kilograms of mustard from a whole saler did not deserve to be sent to jail. He, therefore, convicting him for the offence with which he was charged sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one day and to a fine of Rs. 500.00. Rigorous imprisonment for three months was awarded in default of the payment of fine. This was done by the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 23rd June, 1976 which is now challenged by the State in the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Kachare, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing in support of this appeal for enhancement of sentence has contended that where the relevant R.I. mentions that an item of food should be completely free from certain injurious articles if the sample is found to contain those injurious articles then a serious view must be taken of the adulteration held to be proved. In the instant case, he pointed out that the Food Inspector has in his evidence mentioned that the consumption of argamone seeds affects the digestive system and sometimes results in swelling of hands and feet. The learned trial Magistrate, says Mr. Kachare, was not justified in taking a lenient view of the offence committed by the accused.