M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.)In this case, Sh. S.P. Dixit, Food Inspector. Ajmer purchased the sample mixed milk from the petitioner on 4.4.1975 at Mir Shah Ali Colony, Ajmer and on analysis by the public analyst such sample milk was found containing milk fat contents at 5.0% and solids non-fat contents at 6.34% as against the prescribed standard of 4.5% and 8.5% respectively. The sample milk was found containing 25% of added water also and accordingly declared as adulterated. On a complaint filed by the Food Inspector the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer framed charge for offence Under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules). Confessing his guilt, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the aforesaid charge. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted the petitioner of the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to the minimum punishment of six months R.l. and fine of Rs.1000.00. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner, as made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence this petition Under section 397 Cr.RC. before this court.
(2.)Mr. Madan lal Kumawat, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the facts of the case, as narrated above, and the concurrent findings as recorded thereon by both the courts below. The learned counsel, however, submitted that since the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him and had thus helped the disposal of a case expeditiously he should have been given the benefit of probationary provisions or visited with nominal punishment of fine only. Reduction in sentence imposed upon the petitioner was prayed for also on the ground of protracted litigation. I find no merits in these submissions.
(3.)On examining the record of the court of the learned C.J.M. I feel satisfied that the petitioner had voluntarily confessed his guilt and pleaded guilty to the charge Under section 7/16 of the Act read with Rule 50 of the Rules. Before recording his plea the learned Magistrate had informed the petitioner that it was not necessary for him to confess his guilt and that on his confessing the guilt he may be awarded sentence of imprisonment. The learned Magistrate further appears to have sought the admission or denial of all the relevant documents from the petitioner who had admitted them as correct. Besides framing the charge against him and reading and explaining such charge to him and on his pleading guilty thereto the Magistrate had also examined the petitioner Under section 313 Cr.PC. and in his examination the petitioner had accepted and admitted the prosecution case and the documents adduced in support of such case, as true. The learned Magistrate had, therefore, rightly accepted the plea of guilty of the petitioner and acted thereupon accordingly. There is, therefore, no merit in petitioners contention made in the petition that it was a case of inducement to him to plead guilty on promise of less or normal punishment and consequently of non-voluntary confession made by him. The learned Magistrate, before recording the plea of the petitioner, had given sufficient time and opportunity to him to consider the consequences of his intended act and prepared a full and complete record of the proceedings in that behalf. This court records its appreciation of the precautions taken by the learned Magistrate in recording the plea of guilty of the petitioner and expects the Magistracy in the State to follow such procedure in recording the plea of guilty' in criminal cases.