HEALTH OFFICER SRINAGAR Vs. GHULAM NABI WAGNOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADULTERATION of articles of food is an offence against the society and is unpardonable. Unfortunately food adulteration bag assumed alarming proportions and it therefore, becomes the duty of all those concerned with law to take all such steps as are permitted by law to wipe out this menace by bringing to book the offenders responsible for adulteration of articles of food. It is the duty of the courts to see that an offender is punished according to law and to any extent the courts do not discharge their functions properly, particularly in such social offences, the society suffers because the crime goes unpunished and the criminal is encouraged. We cannot help but voice our grave concern regarding the menace of food adulteration which as already noticed has assumed alarming proportions, It becomes the duty of the prosecution as well as of the courts to intensify their efforts and punish the offenders responsible for committing such offences against the society, in accordance, with law.

(2.) THIS is a petition seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar, for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Section 7 of the said Act. The respondent was charged for the said offence and after a brief trial was convicted for the said offences on his pleading guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court. For awarding this grossly inadequate sentence, the learned magistrate recorded that he was satisfied from the plea of guilty recorded by the respondent that he was repentant of his action and that he did not intend to repeat the offence. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, the Srinagar Municipality, has rightly argued that the reasons given by the learned Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar for not imposing atleast the minimum sentence as prescribed by law, are neither adequate nor special. Learned counsel argued that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that when convection is under Section 16(1)(a)(i) for selling an adulterated article coming within the definition of Section 2 of the Act, the minimum sentence to be awarded is six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- but that under the first proviso to Section 16.(1) of the Act, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to award a sentence, less than the minimum prescribed under the section, but that for doing so, he must record adequate and special reasons. Argued Mr. Naik, that where the reasons recorded by the magistrate are irrelevant or extraneous or grossly inadequate the High Court must rise to the occasion and in exercise of its revisional powers to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent so that the menace of food adulteration is checked to some extent. We have no quarrel with the proposition enunciated by Mr. Naik and, as a matter of fact the submissions made by him are borne out from the plain language of the statute itself. It is the duty of the court to award proper sentence prescribed by law where the offence against an accused is established and even if a lesser sentence has to be impose, where the same is authorised by law, it must be imposed after following the mandate of law authorising the imposition of lesser sentence. In the present case however, we find that there has been not a proper trial so far as the respondent is concerned.