- (1.) This criminal appeal, by special leave, raises a few questions of law under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act XXXVII of 1954) (for short, the Act), ingeniously urged by the appellants, a firm and its two partners, although the plea of 'guilty' entered by the appellants before the trial Court - possibly as part of a 'plea bargaining' which misfired at the appellate level - makes short shrift of the exculpatory and extenuatory arguments urged by his counsel before us. At the end of the weary forensic exercise we gathered what should have been told us first viz., that when the three accused were examined and charges read out they pleaded guilty, which would have abbreviated the hearing here had we known it earlier. We proceed on the footing that the facts set out in the charges are true, that being the net price of a plea of guilt.
(2.) At this stage, the particulars and the setting of the prosecution facts need to be narrated. On October 2, 1973 the Food Inspector of Nasik visited the small restaurant of the first accused firm at about 8.30 a.m., found a few litres of milk kept for sale and enquired about the quality of the milk. He was told by accused No. 3 (a partner of the business, the other partner being his brother, accused No. 2) that it was cow's milk. Thereupon, he brought 660 mls. of such milk from accused No. 3 The statutory formalities under the Act were complied with and one of the three sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst from whom the report was received that (a) the milk was not cow's but buffalo's milk; (b) the fat deficiency was 16.3% and the milk contained 17.8% of added water. A prosecution ensued, the Food Inspector was examined and cross-examined and a charge was framed after the accused were questioned and their written statements filed into Court. The charge read : "That you (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3) on or about the 2nd day of October 1973 at 8.30 a.m. at Nasik stored for sale adulterated buffalo milk with 16.3% of fat deficiency and 17.8% added water and also misbranded it as cow milk, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7(i), (ii) and 16(i)(a)(ii), Prevention of Food Adulteration Act within my cognisance." This charge elicited a plea of 'guilty' from all the three accused, of course, each added that he did not sell 'raw milk' and that the two brothers jointly ran the shop as a firm, that the said business was a small one where tea, milk and other articles were supplied, that the whole family, fifteen strong, lived on the paltry profits from the petty restaurant and so a lenient view by taken on sentence. They further pleaded, in extenuation, that their servant purchased the milk from the bazaar, reported that it was cow's milk and that it was on that basis that the accused told the Food Inspector that what was being sold was cow's milk. The trial Court, acting on the plea of guilt, convicted all the accused but viewed the offence as a somewhat venial deviation where the adulteration, being only of water, 'was not injurious to human health'! After adverting to a prior conviction of A-3 for a food offence, the Magistrate mercifully declined to apply the Probation of Offenders Act! The Magistrate observed in conclusion: 'It is necessary to give accused Nos. 2 and 3 one more chance to improve themselves and do honest business'. The firm, accused No. 1, was punished with fine; accused Nos. 2 and 3, the partners, also were punished under Section 7(1)(ii) read with Section 16(1)(e)(1) of the Act, each being sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/-. Even here, we may permit ourselves the stern remark that there is pathos and bathos in this manner of magisterial indulgence when society is the victim and the stakes are human health and, perhaps, many lives! It must be remembered that the mandate of humanist jurisprudence is sometimes harsh.
(3.) The state appealed for enhancement of the sentence and the High Court acceded and quashed the trial Court sentence in allowance of the appeal and enhanced the punishment to six months' imprisonment plus fine of Rs.500/- each, the firm itself (A-1) being awarded a fine only.;