NAGAR MAHAPALIKA Vs. P GURNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, has obtained this rule in revision, Under Section 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, to enhance the sentences awarded to P. Gurnani and Kanhaiya Lai Gurnani Under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). Each of them has been sentenced t0 a fine of Rs. 125/- and simple imprisonment till rising of the court by Sri V.N. Awasthi, Magistrate 1st Class, Lucknow.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that P. Gurnani was the proprietor of the shop carrying on the business under the name of M/s. Gurnani Provisions Stores and Kanhaiya Lal Gurnani used to sell food articjes at the said shop for and on behalf of P. G. Gurnani, On 31st August, 1969 Kanhaiyalal Gurnani sold 600 grams of 'Saboo Dane Ke Phool' to the Food Inspector, Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava (P.W. 1) for Rs. 3.25 p. The Food Inspector served the accused with the notice on Form VI intimating therein that the purchased 'Saboo Dane Ke Phool were meant for analysis by the Public Analyst. The purchased 'Saboo Dane Ke Phool' were divided into three separate phials, one of such phials was sent to the Public Analyst whose report shows that the sample sent to him was coloured with coal tar dyes, namely (J.) Rhodamine and (2) Melachite green, the use of which is prohibited by the Rules framed under the Act. The Food Inspector examined himself. The two accused acknowledged the various ingredients of the crime. P. Gurnani admitted that he was the proprietor of the business and that Kanhaiya Lai Gurnani had sold the article to the Food Inspector on his behalf. He further acknowledged that the sample of Sago flowers was taken by the Food Inspector from his shop and that it was found coloured with prohibited dyes. Acting on the pleas of guilty, coupled with the statement of the Food Inspector, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that offence Under Section 7(i) read with Section 16 of the Act had been brought home to both the accused. As we have already stated above, he awarded the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 125/-.

(3.) The revisionist contends that the sentence was in contravention of Section 16 of the Act. learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, urged that the court had a discretion under the Proviso to Section 16 (1) to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than six months for adequate and special reasons. We have, therefore, to see whether the case falls within (Section 16(1)(a)(i)' or falls within clause (i) or (ii) of the Proviso to the Section, as it stood before the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976.