P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) JAGANNATH son of Kale resident of Partappur District Meerut was prosecuted for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate, Meerut by his order dated 11th July, 1972. The accused having confessed his guilt the Magistrate was inclined to take a very lenient view on the question of sentence. While convicting the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Magistrate sentenced him to a fine of Rs.150/- (one hundred and fifty) only. In default he was to undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby a revision was filed by the Food Inspector before the Sessions Judge, Meerut, which was allowed on 18th September, 72. The Sessions Judge relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of our court (District Medical Officer of Health, Lucknow v. Binda Prasad, 1972 CrLJ 1967), took the view that the imposition of a sentence of fine, alone under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was illegal. In his opinion a sentence of fine as well as of imprisonment should have been imposed. As such he made a reference to this court for setting aside the sentence of fine and for passing a legal and adequate sentence, as may be required by law. In these circumstances Criminal Reference No. 833 of 1972 came up for decision before a single Judge. The learned single Judge could not see eye to eye with the decision of the Division Bench of our court. He was unable to persuade himself to agree with the above view. As such he proposed that the matter be referred to a larger Bench to reconsider the following question : "Whether it is mandatory for a court convicting an accused person for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to award a sentence of fine as well as imprisonment, even in a case where clauses (i) or (ii) of the Proviso of Section 16 (1) arc applicable and special or adequate reasons have been given." In these circumstances the reference has been placed before this Full Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the impugned orders. In order to examine this question, it would not be out of place to consider the relevant Section as it stood originally in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Section 16 (1) of the said Act ran as follows : "(1) If any person- (a) Whether by himself or by any person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes, any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder, or.................. (g) ............he shall, in addition to the penalty which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable............... (i) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both, (ii) for a second offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees, (iii) for a third and subsequent offence for a term which may extend to four years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than three thousand rupees."
(3.) IT is clear from the aforesaid section that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, varying punishments were prescribed for the first, second and third offence committed under the Act. For the first offence a sentence of 1 year's R. I. or a fine up to two thousand rupees or both could be inflicted, but when the second offence was committed by the accused, it became necessary to inflict a sentence of imprisonment up to two years and fine also. For the third and subsequent offences, the punishment was made still more stringent; the term of imprisonment was extended to four years and with fine. Even under the proviso of subclauses (ii) and (iii) where special and adequate reasons existed for taking a lenient view, it was clearly specified that imprisonment and fine was to be awarded. Clause (i) used the conjunction 'or' but (ii) and (iii) clauses used the conjunction 'and'. This clearly indicated that whereas under the (i) clause imprisonment or fine could be imposed in the alternative, under the (ii) and (iii) clauses there was no option left to the court, but to inflict both, a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. After several years of practical working, it was perhaps thought by the legislature that the penal clauses, embodied in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, were not stringent enough to have a deterrent effect upon the anti-social elements in our society who continued to feed fat upon the financial benefits accruing from the sale of adulterated stuffs at the cost of human well being. A Bill was, therefore, introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20th December, 1973, which was referred to the Joint-Committee of the Houses. The report of the Joint-Committee published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 2 dated 20th December, 1973, has been perused by us very carefully. In para 21 of the aforesaid report, the views of the Committee are partly expressed thus :- "The committee, while agreeing that there should be a minimum sentence of imprisonment for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, feel that prescription of different punishments for the first, second, third and subsequent offences may fetter the hands of the court in awarding higher punishment in the case of a first or second offence if it is so called for according to the gravity of the offence. To avoid this the Committee have suggested that for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, there should be a minimum sentence of imprisonment,, for a term of not less than six months, and of fine, of not less than one thousand rupees, and a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term of six years,, whether the offence be the first, second,, third etc. However, in the case of technical offences like the import, manufacture sale of an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (l) of Clause (i) of section 2 or which is mis- branded under sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, the Committee feel thai a discretion should be given to the count to award a lesser sentence of imprisonment and fine than the minimum sentence off imprisonment of six months and of fine of one thousand rupees............ Subsection (1) of Section 16 of the Act has been modified suitably for the purpose." ;