A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) By his judgment and order dated 24/27th March, 1979, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar convicted the petitioner under section 16(1)(i)(a) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, who vide his judgment dated 30th Nov., 1979, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from eight months to six months. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000.00 and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof was, however, maintained. The petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.
(2.) Notice regarding sentence only was issued in this case. Mr. Harinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner, says that according to the report of the Public Analyst the fat contents was more than the prescribed standard and solids were deficient only by 0.5 per cent. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner is a first offender and a young man of 23 years and that he has undergone about 11/2 months rigorous imprisonment and has paid the fine of Rs. 1,000.00. I have perused the record. Since the petitioner is a first offender, I there being nothing against his character and antecedents on the record, and is a petty shop-keeper, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be amply met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone but the sentence of fine is maintained. I order accordingly. For this view I am supported by an authority of the Supreme Court reported as Sknath Shankar rao Mukkawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1977 (I) FAC 175 wherein it is observed as under:- "As seen earlier, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that when conviction is under section 16(1)(a)(i) for selling an adulterated article coming within the definition of section 2(i)(1), the Magistrate, by recording adequate and special reasons, has jurisdiction to award a sentence less than the minimum. In an appeal under section 377, Cr. P.C. the High Court may interfere with the sentence if no reasons for awarding a lesser sentence are recorded by the Magistrate. Again, if the reasons recorded by the Magistrate are irrelevant, I extraneous, without materials and grossly inadequate, the High Court will be justified in enhancing the sentence." In the aforesaid Supreme Court authority, the charge against the accused was that he had sold chilli powder which was adulterated inasmuch as the percentage of the total ash was more than the permissible limit. The sample of chilli powder which was seized by the Food Inspector contained 37.25% of the total ash against the permissible percentage of 8%. As per the Public Analysts report, the percentage of extraneous matter, which was common salt mixed with the chilli powder was 32.4%. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under section 16(1)(a)(i), proviso (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, read with section 2(i)(1) and section 7(i) of the said Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 or in default of payment of fine, to a further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence. The High Court allowed the appeal of the State with regard to the inadequacy of the sentence and enhanced the sentence to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months. The accused went up in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside the High Courts judgment and restored that of the Magistrate. While doing so, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under : "While dealing with the question of sentence the Magistrate noted that the appellant was a small retail shop-keeper who had only 3 Kgs. of chilli powder in his shop for sale out of which 450 gms. were purchased by the Food Inspector. He also considered the nature of the offence as disclosed in the report of the Public Analyst. There is nothing in the evidence to show that any injurious ingredient to health was mixed with the article. We find that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction, under the first proviso to Sec. 16(1) to award less than the minimum sentence in this case by recording adequate and special reasons. We are unable to hold that the reasons given by the Magistrate are so grossly inadequate that the High Court was right in interfering with the sentence in this petty case. We must hasten to add that the matter would have been absolutely different if the article sold contained ingredients injurious to health.
(3.) Except for the reduction in the sentence as indicated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;