STATE Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 made by the Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, recommending the enhancement of the sentence for the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly called the Act) for which Surinder Kumar had been convicted by the trial Magistrate but had only been let off with a fine of Rs. 50 only.

(2.) ON May 30, 1973, Surinder Kumar was1 found carrying a can containing 4 K. G. of cow's milk in Hamirpur Bazar. On a sample being taken and all the formalities having been observed the Food Inspector sent a sample to the Public Analyst who found the same adulterated, A complaint was filed under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. The accused pleaded guilty and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly convicted him, but in view of the fact that he had made a confession, imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 50 only. The State filed the revision before the learned Sessions Judge who recommended the case for enhancement of the'sentence.

(3.) UNDER Section 16 of the Act the minimum punishment to be imposed is six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, The Magistrate, however, has been given the power to award lesser punishment but for that as contemplated under the proviso there must be adequate and special reason. Here in the instant case no adequate or special reason has been shown except that the accused made a confession. But this alone, in my opinion, cannot be a mitigating circumstance for passing such a nominal sentence of fine of Rs. 50 only, when admittedly it is an anti-social menace. The person who adulterates articles of food wants to enrich himself by making money by endangering the lives of the society or by selling the articles of food under the pretext of pure food and makes more money for the articles which actually they are not. Therefore, in these circumstances, the punishment should be 'exemplary.