(1.) THESE two criminal revision petitions under section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code are directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kota dated 13. 12. 1982 in appeal No. 11/82 Chhotelal Vs. State against the judgment of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Kota City North, Kota dated 27. 9. 1980 in Criminal Case No. 53 of 1980 State Vs. Chhotelal Ram Narain under section 7/16 P. F. A. Act.
(2.) BOTH the cases arise from the same judgment and therefore, I have accepted the joint request of learned counsel for the parties as well as Public Prosecutor that they must be heard and decided by a common judgment.
(3.) EVEN in cases of supari which was not even a staple diet the court took the view that addition of saccharin cannot be excused and then the court noticed that although the court can bring down the sentence to less than minimum prescribed in section 16 (1) on adequate grounds but this cannot be done and should not be done. The court then analysed the situation of which Mr. Tyagi has drawn a graphic picture before me in para No. 23, in the following words:- "we are not unmindful of the possibilities of village citullers and tinny grocers being victimised by dubious enforcement officials which may exacerbate when punishments become harsher and the marginal hardships caused by stern sentences on unsophisticated small dealers. Every cause has its matter and Parliament and Government not the court must be disturbed over the search for solutions of these problems Savage severity may not always prove effective and may be cruel on petty and marginal offences. "