The court considered the permissibility of synthetic tocopherols, the absence of health risks, and the defendant's personal circumstances in determining the sentence.

SURESH KAIT, J

1. Ld. counsel for the State submits that vide judgment dated 27.07.2010 ld. ACMM held the respondent guilty for violation of sub clause (a)(j)(m) of Section 2 (ia) punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and vide order of sentence dated 31.07.2010, he was sentenced to RI for a period of 01 year and fine Rs.5,000/-for violation of sub-clause (a)(j)(m) of Section 2 (ia) punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

2. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the abovesaid order before the Sessions Court. Vide judgment dated 27.04.2011, ld ASJ has modified the order passed by ld. MM to the extent of sentencing him to pay fine of ` 50,000/-or in default SI of 03 months by keeping in view his responsibility towards his wife and three minor children and that he had no criminal antecedents.

3. Ld. APP has pointed out that ld. Special Judge/NDPS has also not differed with the finding recorded by the ld. trial court, holding the appellant guilty for offences punishable under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act for violation of (a)(j)(m) of Section 2(ia) of the PFA Act, and has recorded in its Impugned Judgment para 15 as under:

“Both the reports indicated the presence of synthetic yellow oil soluble colour. As per the standards laid down for the mustard oil, it should be free from added colouring matter. Thus the sample commodity as sold by the appellant was not of the nature and quality which it represented to be as it was having unpermitted synthetic colouring matter. In view of the above, I do not differ with the findings given by the trial court qua holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 16(1A) r.w.s. 7 of the PFA Act for violation of (a) (j) (m) of section 2(ia) of the PFA Act.”

4. Ld. APP has also pointed out that ld. appellate court has gone totally wrong as under Section 16(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act, minimum sentence is 01 year extensible upto 06 years, whereas reduced to only to the tune of ` 50,000/-.

5. The similar issues have been settled in a case of State Govt of NCT Vs. Amar Singh 2005 (10) SCC 279, wherein it is held that under Section 16(1-A) of the Act minimum sentence of one year imprisonment has been prescribed and no discretion has been given to the court to reduce the same. This being the position, the High Court has committed an error in reducing the imprisonment from less than the minimum period prescribed under the statute.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in catena of cases, a lenient view has been taken by the Subordinate courts, High Court and the Supreme Court. In the said case also, the Ld. Additional Judge has recorded as under:

“On going through the standards for the mustard oil I find that before 2004 use of synthetic tocopherols as food additives in edible oils and fats was prohibited. By the notification 2004 natural and synthetic tocopherols are permitted to be used in edible oils and fats. The CFL report indicated the colour as yellow oil soluble colour in the sample commodity. Thus, the possibility of synthetic tocopherol in the sample commodity cannot be ruled out. In the present case the sample was taken in the year 2003 before the notification came into force.

In the present case also both the reports did not indicate that the added synthetic colouring matter was injurious to health. Rather by amendment w.e.f. 2004, use of tocopherol in natural and synthetic form as antioxidants agents is permitted.

Taking support of the case supra I am of the view that the appellant deserves leniency. The appellant has faced the rigour of trial since 2003. He is a small shopkeeper with no criminal antecedents. After this incident he is not involved in any other case. He has responsibility of his wife and three minor children. Keeping in view all these facts I sentence him to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for