Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- A successful prosecution for a food offence ended in a conviction of the accused, followed by a flea-bite fine of Rupees 100/- Two criminal revisions ensued at the instance of the State and the Food Inspector separately since they were dissatisfied with the magisterial leniency. (Why two revision proceedings should have been instituted, involving duplication of cases and avoidable expenditure from the public exchequer is for the authorities to examine and inhibit in future). The High Court heard the accused against the conviction itself but upheld the guilt and enhanced the punishment to the statutory minimum of six months imprisonment and one thousand rupees fine. The aggrieved dealer has reached here through the twin routes of Art. 32 - a writ petition bristling with challenges of settled concepts and hanging every argument on the familiar peg of breach of fundamental rights - and of Art. 136 - a remedy to correct gross errors of law leading to the manifest injustice of loss of liberty for a long term of one who, the prosecution charged, jeopardised the lives of many consumers. The petitioner before us is the active partner of a firm, Gits Food Products