The court held that the practice of having a feast on the occasion of death or marriage have harmful consequences on the the economic life of the people, especially those belonging to the backward classes and that for eradication of such harmful practice it is necessary to educate the people to change their mental attitude.

1. - This appeal has been filed by the State under Section 377 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 30.h March 1978 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara, in Cr. Case No. 52/1974 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the respondents of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravention of provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1972 and imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 20/- on each of the respondents In this appeal, the State has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the respondents.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving information that a feast on the occasion of the death of his mother, was being arranged by Roop Nath son of Chhagan Nath, in village Dhamaniya, Ajay Pal Singh, S.H.O Bhilwara, went to village Dhamaniya and found that Roop Nath son of Devi Nath and Partap Nath son of Balunath were preparing Malpuas. Pyaracath was mixing flour with Gur Dharemnath was removing boiled potatces in other Kadhai and Roopa was filling the water tank with water. Ajaypal Singh further found that about 200 persons had assembled to take part in the feast and that the feast was being held in contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1972. He thereupon seized 2 quintals and 80 Kg of prepared Malpuas, 5 Kg of the mixture of flour and gur used for preparation of Malpuas; 40 Kg. of boiled potatoes and 20 Kg of wheat flour. After investigation the challan was presented against the three respondents and Dharamnath, Pyarnath and Roops under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the Court of S.D.M. Mandalgarh Subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.

3. After trial the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused Dharamanath, Pyaranath and Rupa but convicted the respondents of the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the view that from the seizure of 280 Kgs. of Malpuas it was established that Roop Nath son of Chhagan Nath had arranged a feast for more than 100 persons and the provision of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order had been contravened. While dealing with the question of sentence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that the acts of the accused persons were not such as to cause any substantial harm to the general public and that having a feast on the occasion of marriage or death is part of the social structure of this country and it can not be said that as a result of such feast any harm is caused to society. The Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the case was covered by the provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and that it was a fit case for not awarding the minimum sentence prescribed under the law and he, therefore, awarded the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and imposed a fine of Rs. 20/ on each of the respondents.

4. In support of the appeal, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Chiff Judicial Magistrate had erred in applying the provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to the facts of the present case and that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence awarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was grossly inadequate. Even the notices of the appeal have been duly served on the respondents they have not chosen to appear in this Court to contest the appeal.

5. The incident in respect of which the respondents have been prosecuted took place on 22nd February, 1974 i.e. prior to the enactment of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1974, which came into force on 29th August, 1974, whereby Section 7 was substituted and a minimum sentence of imprisonment for 3 months was laid down in respect of contravention of orders passed under Clauses (a) to (g) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. The present case i