ADMINISTRATOR AMRITSAR MUNICIPALITY Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is reference under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure made by Shri O. P. Saini, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, on November 30, 1967 recommending that the sentence of the Respondent be enhanced from simple imprisonment till the rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar,, by judgment, dated January 19, 1967, convicted the Respondent under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Respondent filed an appeal against his conviction in the Court of Sessions while Municipal Committee, Amritsar, preferred petition for revision for enhancement of the sentence. The appeal of the Respondent was dismissed. The present reference has arisen out of that revision petition. The Respondent in that revision petition has also filed revision petition No. 169 of 1968, from the judgment of Shri O. P. Saini, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, passed in appeal upholding his conviction. That revision petition came up on April 29, 1968. It was directed to be heard along with the reference. As I have dismissed today the revision petition without admitting it to hearing, nothing survives for reconsideration of the conviction of the Petitioner in that revision petition. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the enhancement of sentence as recommended by the Additional Sessions Judge is called for.

(2.) IT has been contended by the Counsel for Bhupinder Singh Respondent, that by virtue of proviso (i) appended to Sub -section (1) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Court can impose sentence of imprisonment for a term less than six months. Sub -section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that in addition to penalty to which an accused person be liable under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than six months. Proviso (i) to Sub -section (1) of Section 16 of the Act would apply to the case against the Respondent, if the offence committed by the Respondent falls under Sub -clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 16(1) of the Act and is with respect to an article of food, which is adulterated as defined in Sub -clause (1) of Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act Sub -clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub -section (1) of Section 16 of the Act runs as follows:

(3.) THE prescribed standard for quality or purity of ice -cream is given in rule A.11.11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. That rule runs as follows: