9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated inasmuch as the percentage of the total ash was more than the permissible limit. The sample of chilli powder which was seized by the Food Inspec- tor on April 13, 1974, contained 37.25% of the total ash against the permissible percentage of 8%. It was stated in the Analyst's report that the percentage of extraneous matter which was common salt mixed with the chilli powder was 32.4%. The learned Magistrate found that the chilli powder was adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(1) although the prosecution was on the basis of the article being adulterated within the meaning of section 2(i)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (briefly the Act). The State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of the father of the appellant and against the inadequacy of the sentence awarded to the appel- lant. The High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal of the appellant's father but allowed the appeal of the State with regard to the inadequacy of the sentence. The High Court while affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with sections 2(i)(1) and 7(i) of the Act enhanced the sentence to six mont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 377(1) and (2) Cr. P.C. with which we are concerned: 377. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sen- tence on the ground of its inadequacy. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police EStablishment Act, 1946, or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy . Mr. Tarkunde emphasised upon the difference of language in section 377(2) and section 378(2) Cr. P.C. In the latter section the word also appears making provision for both the State Government the Central Government to appeal against acquittal. On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the State that the word also may be read in section 377(2) Cr.P.C. in the context of the scheme o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o classifications the entire denotation of criminal offences is exhausted. It is clear that the Delhi Special Police Establishment also has to comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in' inves- tigation of offences just as the State Police has to do. By section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette specify the offences or class of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. It is only when such a notification is made by the Central Government that the Delhi Special Police Establishment is empowered to investigate the specified offences. Similarly if in any other Central Act, not being the Code of Criminal Procedure, a provision is made for empowering a particular agency to make investigation of offences under that Act, then also the Central Government alone will be the competent authority to prefer appeal under section 377(2) Cr. P.C. The true test, therefore, under section 377(2) Cr. P.C. is whether the offence is investi- gated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or is investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the instance of the State Government is maintain- able. The first submission of the appellant has no force. With regard to the second and last submission on sen- tence Mr. Khanna on behalf of the State submits that this was a case under section 16 for violation of section 2(i)(c) of the Act in which case the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to award a sentence less than six months. According to counsel, the High Court was right in enhancing the sen- tence of the appellant. We are concerned in this case with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prior to the amendment by Act 34 of 1976. which (Goswami, J) inter alia, amended section 2(i)(1) and added a sub-clause (m) to section 2(i). It is true. that under section 16(1)(a)(i) if any person sells any article of food which is adulterated he shall be` punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years and a fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. The proviso to that section, however, relieves an offence trader sub-clause (i) of clause (a) when inter alia, it is with respect to an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (1 ) of claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit an offence under the Act with an equal degree of severity under specified circumstances, it is permissible for the courts to give the benefit in suitable cases. As seen earlier, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act provides that when conviction is under section 16(1)(a)(i) for selling an adulterated article coming within the defini- tion of section 2(i)(1), the Magistrate, by recording adequate and special reasons, has jurisdiction to award a sentence less than the minimum. In an appeal under section 377 Cr.P.C. the High, Court may interfere with the sentence if no reasons for awarding a lesser sentence are recorded by the Magistrate Again, if the reasons recorded by the Magistrate are irrelevant, extrane- ous, without materials and grossly inadequate, the High Court will' be justified in enhancing the sentence. While dealing with the question of sentence the Magis- trate noted that the appellant was a small retail shopkeeper who had only 3 kgs. of chilli powder in his shop for sale out of which 450 gms. were purchased by the Food Inspector. He also considered the nature of the offence as disclosed in the report of the Public Analyst. There is nothing in the evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
