1977 (4) TMI 175 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the State's appeal u/s 377(1) Cr.P.C.
2. Justification for interference with the sentence by the High Court.
3. High Court's power of enhancement of sentence suo motu.
4. Interpretation of section 377(2) Cr.P.C. in relation to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
5. Adequacy of reasons for awarding a lesser sentence by the Magistrate.

Summary:

1. Competency of the State's Appeal u/s 377(1) Cr.P.C.:
Mr. Tarkunde argued that the appeal by the State of Maharashtra u/s 377(1) Cr.P.C. was incompetent due to the provisions of sub-section (2) of that section. The Court clarified that section 377(2) Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case, and the appeal u/s 377(1) Cr.P.C. at the instance of the State Government is maintainable. The Court held that the first submission of the appellant has no force.

2. Justification for Interference with the Sentence by the High Court:
The High Court enhanced the appellant's sentence to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant contended that the trial court had given adequate reasons for imposing a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had jurisdiction under the first proviso to section 16(1) to award less than the minimum sentence by recording adequate and special reasons. The reasons given by the Magistrate were not grossly inadequate, and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the sentence in this petty case.

3. High Court's Power of Enhancement of Sentence Suo Motu:
The Court clarified that the High Court's power of enhancement of sentence by exercising revisional jurisdiction suo motu is still extant u/s 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. The provision of section 401(4) does not stand in the way of the High Court's exercise of power of revision suo motu.

4. Interpretation of Section 377(2) Cr.P.C. in Relation to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:
The Court examined whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowered the Food Inspectors to make investigations under the Act. It concluded that there is no express provision in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowering the Food Inspectors to make investigations. Therefore, section 377(2) Cr.P.C. is not applicable, and the appeal by the State Government u/s 377(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable.

5. Adequacy of Reasons for Awarding a Lesser Sentence by the Magistrate:
The Magistrate noted that the appellant was a small retail shopkeeper and considered the nature of the offence as disclosed in the report of the Public Analyst. There was no evidence to show that any injurious ingredient to health was mixed with the article. The Supreme Court found that the reasons given by the Magistrate were adequate and special, justifying the lesser sentence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside. The appellant was discharged from his bail bond. The Court also emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and decorum, noting that the learned single Judge should have referred the matter to a larger bench instead of taking a contrary view to a coordinate court's decision.