B.R.James J. - (1.) Piarey Lal as a milk-seller of Agra City. On the 18th July 1956 the Food Inspector took a sample of the milk which he was selling in a can. On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in far content by about 23 per cent, and that it contained 39 per cent, of added water. In consequence the Medical Officer of Health filed a complain, against him for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act XXXVII of 1954). The complaint specifically mentioned that he had a previous conviction Mr a similar offence, namely, hat he had been fined Rs. 250/- on 31-8-1956 by Sri R. P. Srivastava, Magistrate I class, Agra, under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for milk adulteration. At the trial he was represented throughout by counsel. The Food Inspector was the solitary witness for the prosecution. In his deposition, after mentioning the relevan' facts of the offence at issue, he stated: "The accused was fined Rs. 250/- on 31-8-56 under Section 7/16 P F. A. in the court of Sri R. P. Srivastava. He was fined for adulteration of milk". Not a single question was put to the Inspector in cross-examination. Examined under Section 364 Cr. P. C. Piarey Lal admitted the sale of his milk sample to the Food Inspector and pleaded that the milking had been done by his children. He was then asked this question: "Were you fined Rs. 250/- for adulteration of milk under Section 7/16 P. F. A. Act from the court of Sri R. P. Srivastava on 31-8-56?" He replied: "I was fined. I do not remember the amount of the fine". The next question was: "Why should you not be punished under Section 7/16 P. F. A. Act?" He answered: "I did not commit the offence. It was due to my young children who had the milking done". He added that he would not produce defence. Thereupon the Magistrate framed the following charge against him: "That you on or about 18-7-1956, at about 8 p. m in mohalla Moti Katra P. S. Kotwali Agra were found selling milk of cow and buffalo, the sample of which was taken by the Food Inspector on payment of price which was on analysis by the Public Analyst found adulterated and contained deficiencies of fat of about 23 per cent and contained 39 per cent water and previous to this you were convicted under Section 7/16 and sentenced to a tine of Rs. 250/- on 31-8-56 thereby committed an offence punishable under section and within 7/16(1)(a)(ii) of P. F, A. Act of 1954. And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge." When this charge was read over and explained to him he pleaded guilty to it. He did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Magistrate then delivered judgment the operative part of which was in these words: "This is clear that this accused had been convicted previously under Section 7/16 (1) (a) (ii) of Act 87 of 1954 and hence he deserves enhanced sentence, for the second offence, I however think that the sentence of one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- will be too severe as contemplated in Section 16(g)(ii) of P. F. A. Act of 1954 for a milk seller. As his business does not appear to be on a high scale, I award him a sentence of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-only. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo further period of 6 months R. I." Thereupon Piarey Lal lodged an appeal against his conviction and sentence. It came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Judge heard it both on the propriety of the conviction and on the quantum of punishment. He affirmed the correctness of the conviction, though in this connection we should like to observe that he does not appear to be aware of the provisions of Section 412 Cr. P. C. under which no appeal against a conviction is competent where the accused has pleaded guilty to the charge, as was admittedly the case here. On the question of sentence the argument of Piarey Lal's counsel was that his previous conviction had not been proved according to law. This argument found favour with the learned Judge, who following the decision of Din Mohammad, J. in Sardar Ahmad v. Emperor AIR 1934 Lah 693 and holding that the procedure laid down by Section 511 Cr. P. C. had not been followed as neither the copy of the judgment of the previous conviction nor any certificate recording the same had been produced by the prosecution, reduced the sentence to a mere fine of Rs. 400/-.
(2.) The Medical Officer of Health has come up to this Court in Revision and prays that the sentence passed by the learned Judge on Piarey Lal be enhanced, and his contention is that it has been proved from the record that this accused had been previously convicted of milk adulteration and that inasmuch as the present was his second offence he was liable to enhanced punishment as prescribed by Section 16(1)(a)(ii).
(3.) We have no doubt that the learned Judge has misunderstood the Lahore ruling, for that is merely an authority for the proposition that a previous conviction relied upon for enhanced punishment must be proved in accordance with law -- a proposition which we fully endorse; the ruling nowhere lays down that Section 511 prescribed the only mode of proving the previous conviction. Nor is the learned Judge right in thinking that Section 511 provides the only procedure for proving such a fact. This is evident from the very words "in addition to any other mode provided by any law for the time being In force" which occur in the section. It is open to the prosecution to prove a previous conviction not only by acting upon Section 511 but by following any other law.;