THE STATE Vs. MISHRILAL DHANRAJ PARIKH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondents-accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandgaon, District Nasik. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly thus :

(2.) All the three respondents-accused who appear to be brothers are the partners of a firm M/s Mishrilal Dhanraj Parekh which is respondent No. 4. That firm is doing business at Nandgaon in grocery articles. On Aug. 6, 1973 P.W. 1 Bengle the Food Inspector visited that shop and accused No. 2 was present. The Food Inspector purchased 450 grams of Shahajira for analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. By his report (Exh. 23) dated 6th Oct. 1973 the Public Analyst found that the sample contained 98.9% of extraneous matter more than 5% and therefore it was adulterated under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. On these facts all the three accused and their firm were prosecuted. The Food Inspector Bengle gave evidence before charge. Thereafter a charge at Exh. 34 was framed on Nov. 25, 1974. That charge is to the effect that the accused on Aug. 6, 1973 at Nandgaon sold "Shahajira-whole" the article which was adulterated under section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and contained extraneous matter more than 5% and thereby committed an offence under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case was then posted for plea of the accused on the same day. On that day, all the accused including accused No. 2 for the firm pleaded guilty to the charge and prayed for mercy being shown to them. They also filed a joint signed written statement at Exh. 38-A, wherein they stated that all of them pleaded guilty. They then went on to state that accused No. 1 is an old man and suffering from Asthma and accused No. 2 has blood pressure and is ill and accused No. 3 is always on his farm, and hence he has no knowledge of the dealings of the grocery shop. They then concluded their written statement by saying :

(3.) On the same day, the learned Magistrate accepted the plea of the accused and he convicted them. He then referred in paragraph 5 of his judgment to the contents of the joint application (Exh. 38A) filed by the accused as under :