STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARAYAN KISHAN DASARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, at Nanded, in Criminal Case No. 4191 of 1975 for an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 The basis of the prosecution was the fact that the Respondent had sold to the Food Inspector of Nanded. milk which, on analysis, was found to be adulterated, inasmuch as, it contained 40% of added water and less fat than the minimum prescribed under the Rules made under the Act. In support of its case, the prosecution examined not only the Food Inspector, but also a Panch who witnessed the statutory sale made by the Respondent to the Food Inspector. The learned trial Magistrate, by his judgment & order dated 28th of July 1976, found the Respondent guilty of the offence with which he was charged. However, noticing certain factors, the learned Magistrate took a lenient view and sentenced the Respondent to sufrer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs, 750/-. In default of the payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months was also imposed.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of sentence, the State has preferred this Appeal for enhancement of the sentence, awarded to the Respondent.

(3.) Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has taken a serious objection to the lenient view which the learned trial Magistrate took of the offence. According to Mr. Gangakhedkar, offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be viewed with serious concern and though the product in the instant case consisted only of milk adulterated with water, the Respondent deserved some substantive term of imprisonment. There is a considerable justification in the grievance made by Mr Gangakhedkar against the lenient view taken by the learned trial Magistrate. But at the same time, it cannot be said that the factors which I will now enumerate and which weighed with the learned trial Magistrate were wholly irrelevant or grossly so inadequate as to merit interference by this Court. It was noticed by the learned trial Magistrate that the Respondent was a poor man and the offence for which he has now been prosecuted is the first offence. There is also material on record to show that the Respondent himself has no milk cattle and he sells the milk after purchasing the same from the villagers. The milk that was purchased from the Respondent was taken from a pot in which it was being boiled. From this it is clear that the Respondent was selling milk after purchasing the same from the villagers and after boiling it The sentence of fine of Rs. 750/- cannot be said to be very light for a person of the status of the present Respondent.