INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the State questioning the judgment dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned ACMM who while upholding the conviction of the respondent under Section 2(ix)(e)(g)&(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act) and for violation of Rule 32(b)&(e), Rule 37 and Rule 42 (zzz)(16) of the PFA Rules 1955 punishable under Section 16(1)(a) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act sentenced the respondent to undergo SI for 1 day i.e. till the rising of the Court. He had also imposed a fine of Rs.35,000/- upon the respondent.

2. The State is aggrieved by this order of sentence. Submission is that the sentence awarded to the respondent is inadequate. There is a minimum sentence which is prescribed for this offence which is for a period of 3 months and no special reason having been accorded for imposing a sentence lesser than the minimum (minimum having been engrafted by the Legislature), the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. The respondent has put an appearance. He has made submissions orally. His submission is that he does not wish to file any reply.

4. Arguments have been heard.

5. The fir