GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS State-appeal deserves to be accepted on a short point that in cases of adulteration of food-stuffs, the Magistrate was not justified in releasing the accused after imposition of fine, only. The case of food adulteration and that too, in oil, deserves to be seriously dealt with as it can spread serious health hazard and can become dangers to the society.
(2.) IN the instant case, the respondent was prosecuted for the offence under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the allegation that the Food INspector took the same of mustard oil on 28. 8. 74 and on chemical examination that oil was found to be adulterated. The trial court found the respondent guilty for the offence under S. 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but, while hearing on the question of sentence, observed that looking to the poverty of the accused-respondent and the fact that there was no foreign material in oil, it sentenced the respondent to a period of sentence till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The minimum sentence provided under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is as under: "16. Penalties. (1) xxx (a) to (g) xxx he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years, and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. " In the present case, the reasons given for imposing exceptional lenient sentence, are that the respondent himself is only source of income in his family and there was no foreign material found in the oil. In most of the families, the bread-earnor is the adult member and if he indulges in serious offences like adulteration, to release him only on fine would be misplaced leniency. Such leniency in cases of adulteration where an adulteror can easily pay the fine, would tantamount to abatement of crime by judicial process. The sentence to the accused till rising of the court in such cases is a very questionable and objectionable device to circumvent the provisions of law. I am convinced that those who indulges in anti-social crimes like food-stuffs adulteration deserves no sympathy from the courts and the Court would invariably punish them with suitable sentence of imprisonment atleast minimum sentence The minimum sentence is 6 months under S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, proviso and I have no hesitation in imposing the same. The fact that the foreign material was not found in the process of adulteration of oil is of no consequences. The adulteration is adulteration and may be due to any reasons. If the prescribed standard of food stuffs and its purity are not found them once the chemical analysis of the adulteration is there, it is not the duty of the judiciary to probe in the chemical contents of adulteration to find out as to what type of adulteration is there.
(3.) LEARNED counsel Miss Rajesh Kandwal who was appointed as Amicus Curiae as no one has appeared to defend and oppose the appeal on behalf of the respondent, submitted that much time has passed in between the commission of the offence and decision of the appeal and, therefore, the sentence should not be increased now. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sada Singh Vs. State (1), that the convict was released on bail and much time has passed in between, that cannot be a ground for not imposing suitable sufficient sentence as provided under law. In the result, this appeal is allowed. While maintaining his conviction as recorded against the respondent by the trial court, his sentence is enhanced to six month's R. I. from till rising of the court, with a fine of Rs. 1000/- which is maintained. ;