THE STATE Vs. JUDIOMAL SANGATMAL LALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar. This appeal is an illustration of the manner in which food adulteration cases are disposed of in a cavalier manner and the accused are persuaded to plead guilty in the hope that they would be dealt with leniently. It appears that on July 12, 1973, Rana (P.W. 1), the Food Inspector, went to the Hotel of the accused at Ulhasnagar called "Ganesh Hindu Hotel" and he purchased 1500 grams "Bundi Ladu" for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst, as appears from his report Exhibit 15, opined that the sample contained non-permitted coal tar dye, viz., Metanil yellow, and is adulterated under Sec. 2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter the Magistrate framed charge at Exhibit 20 under section 7(1) read with Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Act on the allegation that "Bundi Ladu" sold by the accused contained Metanil Yellow colour and, therefore, it was adulterated within the meaning of Sec. 2(i)(j) of the Act. This charge being framed on Feb. 15, 1975, and the same being read over to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The matter was then adjourned from time to time. On Oct. 4, 1975, it appears that an application (Exhibit 22) drafted in English and signed by the accused in Urdu script was presented in Court. That application, which is styled as a written statement of the accused, reads as under :

(2.) The Magistrate thereafter proceeded to dispose of the case on that very day by writing a short judgment wherein he stated in paragraph 3 that as there was prima facie evidence the charge was framed; that the accused pleaded guilty to the charge and that his plea was voluntary and, therefore, the learned Magistrate accepted it and convicted him. Paragraph 4 thereof refers to the prayer for mercy by the accused and the Magistrate observed that the accused has submitted that he is a retailer and he purchases articles from other persons and so his offence is not intentional. He further observed that the colour, whether it is permitted or otherwise, is not visible to the eye. He concluded his judgment by saying that the facts are not disputed by the prosecution. Therefore, having convicted the accused under section 16(1) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Magistrate sentenced the accused till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(3.) The State being aggrieved by that lenient sentence has preferred this appeal for enhancement.