STATE Vs. CHANDU LAXMAN KAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Newasa to the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused, having pleaded guilty to the charge, was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate for an offence under section 16 read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00.

(2.) Admittedly, the accused is conducting a canteen at the S.T. Stand, Newasa. The Food Inspector among other articles took Shev for analysis. The report of the Public Analyst (Exh. 13) was received to the effect that the sample contained metanil yellow namely extraneous non-permitted coal tar dye and it is adulterated under section 2(i)(j) of the Act. On these facts the accused was prosecuted. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and prayed for leniency. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused was not responsible for the contents of the colour which he was using and that he was retailer and that the offence was committed without his knowledge. It is on that reasoning, he awarded a sentence less than the minimum prescribed under the law.

(3.) The State being aggrieved with the sentence, filed this appeal for enhancement of sentence. Mr. Bardy, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that since it was a case of adulteration of food under section 2(l)(j) of the Act, the court had no discretion in the matter of sentence as the proviso to section 16 was not at all attracted. While not disputing the fact that the provisos to section 16 are not attracted, Mr. Angal has submitted that the court need not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate. But since the offence is not covered by the provisos to section 16 of the Act the court has no discretion in the matter of sentence. Therefore, the court has to award minimum sentence prescribed under the law.