The Court emphasizes the need for deterrent penalties for food adulteration offenses to protect public health.

1 This revision petition has been filed by the Food Inspector, Shertalai Municipal Council for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Shertallay in C.C. 193/65. The petitioner who has been examined as pw. 1 in the case filed a complaint against the respondent as accused No. 2 and another person who is said to be his servant as accused No. 1 charging both of them with an offence under S.7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with S.16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The first accused could not be apprehended; and, therefore, the trial was made against the second accused, namely the respondent. The learned magistrate found the respondent guilty of the offence charged against him, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2 The respondent was, at the relevant time, the Contractor for supply of milk to the Government Hospital at Shertallay. On 16-3-1965 pursuant to this contract, he sent a copper pot of milk to the hospital out of which a sample was purchased by pw. 1 for analysis under the Act. Action was taken by him as required by the Act; and one part of the sample was sent for examination to the Public Analyst. Ex. P-5 is the report of the Analyst, which shows that the sample sent for him for examination contained not less than 30 per cent of added water, and it was deficient in fat by 96 per cent. The learned Magistrate held on the evidence before her that the respondent was the person who sent the milk through the first accused, from which stock pw. 1 purchased the sample for analysis. The learned Magistrate also stated that the offence was of a very serious nature; and it amounted even to a great sin committed against humanity. After stating these reasons, she awarded the sentence as already mentioned.

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to S.16(1) of the Act which reads as follows:
"16. Penalties (1) If any person
(a) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food
(i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interests of public health;
(ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub clause (1) in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; or
(b) Prevents a food inspector from taking a sample as authorised by this Act; or
(c) prevents a food inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act; or
(d) being a manufacturer of an article of food, has in his possession or in any of the premises occupied by him, any material which may be employed for the purpose of adulteration; or
(e) uses any report or certificate of a test or analysis made by the Director of the Centra] Food Laboratory or by a Public Analyst or any extract thereof for the purpose of advertising any article of food; or
(f) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf gives to the vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of any article of food sold by him, he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of S.6 be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years, and with a fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees;
Provided that
(i) If the offence is under sub-section (1) of clause (a) and is with respect to article of food which is adulterated under sub clause (1) of clause (i) of S.2 or misbranded under sub clause (k) of clause (ix) of that section; or
(ii) If the offence is under sub clause (ii) of clause (a), the court may for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or o