Order.- This is a revision taken up suo motu by the High Court. Notice was issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence imposed on him ought not to be enhanced and the accused, pursuant to the notice, has appeared through Counsel. Counsel has been heard. The accused was convicted of an offence under section 16(i)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. This was by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode in C.C.No. 89 of 1976. The buffalo milk sold by the accused to the Food Inspector was found not to conform to the standards prescribed for buffalo milk under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Public Analyst’s report disclosed that the sample of milk contained only 5 per cent. milk fat and 7.6 per cent. milk solids-not-fat and as such did not conform to the standard. The accused appealed against the conviction. The learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The sentence of fine was maintained. It may also be mentioned that the sale of the buffalo milk to the Food Inspector was on 22nd January, 1976, prior to the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Amendment Act XXXIV of 1976. It is therefore, section 16 as it stood prior to the said amendment that applies to the case.

2. This Court noticed, during the calender revision of judgments, that the sentence in the case was below the minimum prescribed in section 16(1) of the Act which provided that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall not be less than six months. No circumstance calling for the application of the proviso to section 16(1) was disclosed in the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also that of the Sessions Judge. That is the reason why this Court took up the matter in suo motu revision. It must be stated that this is not an isolated instance. There are a number of cases where the Magistrates trying offences under section 16(1)(a) had imposed sentences below the minimum ‘prescribed without showing proper justification for reducing the sentence below the minimum. Counsel in some of those cases which came to the notice of this Court were heard since a common question arose.

3. In the cases of offences under sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of section 16 with respect to an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (1) of clause (1) of section 2 ormisbranded under sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of that section the Court is empowered to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than Rs. 1,000 or of both for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. That is the case also where the offence is one under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 16. I am referring to the section as it stood prior to the amendment by Act XXXIV of 1976. The position is slightly different after the amendment though even in such a case the scope and extent of the term “adequate and special reasons” may arise for consideration.

4. Since there has been rarely any appliation of the judicial mind to the question as to what constitutes adequate and special reasons by the subordinate Courts trying Food Adulteration cases it is worthwhile to notice this question here. The main purpose of taking up these cases in revision on this Court’s initiative is to draw the attention of the subordinate Courts to the impropriety of imposing sentences below the minimum as a matter of course on irrelevant considerations and out of misplaced sympathies.

5. That the article of food which is the subject of the charge here was adulterated, as understood under sub-clause (1) of clause (1) of section 2 of the Act has been found by both the Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document