MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. MAHESHWARI PD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO body present on behalf of the accused -non -petitioner despite service. 1. The accused -non -petitioner was convicted under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (No. XXXVII of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. The Municipal Council, Udaipur has filed this revision under section 439 Cr.P.C. (old) for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused -non -petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY put the prosecution case is that on November 23, 1969, one Tej Singh with whom we are not concerned in this criminal revision, and Maheshwari Prasad (accused non -petitioner) were selling milk from the containers placed in Jeep RJY 3448 at 11.45 a.m. On that day, the Food Inspector saw them selling milk outside Hathipol, at that time. Manoharsingh was purchasing milk contained in the containers. It has been alleged by the prosecution that there were seven 'Kothis' of the milk in the aforesaid Jeep, out of which six 'Kothis' were empty and the remaining one was full of milk. The Food Inspector purchased 600 ml. of milk and gave 68 n.p. to Tejsingh, who is said to be servant of Maheshwari Prasad (accused -non -petitioner), at that time, the accused was sitting in the Jeep on the seat of the driver. As soon as the accused saw the Food Inspector, he left the Jeep. The purchased milk was divided into three equal parts and was filled in three clean bottles. Formal in was also added. The bottles were sealed. A 'Panchnama' was prepared and specimen seal was fixed. Out of three bottles, one bottle was given to the accused and one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst at Jaipur. The Public Analyst vide Ex. P. 6 found that the milk of which the sample was taken, was adulterated by reason of its containing 22% of added water. After obtaining necessary sanction, a complaint was filed in the court of Municipal Magistrate, Udaipur. While the case was pending, Tej Singh died and therefore, proceedings continued against the accused non -petitioner only. The accused -non -petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. He examined himself under section 345 -A Cr.P.C. (old). The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. The learned Magistrate found the accused -non -petitioner guilty under section 16(1) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -as aforesaid. The Municipal Council, Udaipur has filed this revision petition.

(3.) ON the basis of the provisions contained in section 16 of the Act, which were in vague at the relevant time, and the fact that the accused -non -petitioner was convicted twice previously under section 16 of the Act, it was contended by Mr. Sharma that the sentence awarded is grossly inadequate and that there were no adequate special reasons mentioned by the Municipal Magistrate for awarding sentence of imprisonment of less than six months or of fine less than Rs. 1000/ -or both imprisonment of less than six months and fine of less than one thousand rupees.