State of Haryana vs Shyam Lal

M.L. Koul, J.

Shyam Lal, tried and convicted for an offence under Section 7 read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/; in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He filed an appeal against the conviction and the sentence which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who while confirming the order of conviction of Shyam Lal respondent on merits, reduced the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court but maintained the sentence of fine with its terms for imprisonment in default imposed by the trial Court.

The State of Haryana has come up in appeal to this Court for enhancement of sentence of imprisonment.

Heard Mr. Vimal Kumar, Advocate, for the State and Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate, for the respondent.

Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the respondent did not say anything on merits of the case, rather has only urged for leniency in the punishment which discretion according to him has been rightly exercised by the appellate Court in reducing the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine with a default clause as imposed by the trial court.

In view of the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the only point which assumes importance for consideration is as to whether any room has been left over in the terminology of Section 16 of the Act where for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the Court can impose a sentence less than six months or three months as the case may be for the special reasons recorded for awarding such a minimum imprisonment upon an accused who is found guilty of an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

Although the aims and objects of this special Act are not required to be emphasised but even then it can be said that as the adulteration of food stuffs was so rampant amongst the manufacturers and the dealers of the food stuffs, therefore, to curb this menace a special law came into being known as Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 with a determination to onslaught on this antisocial behaviour of the people with a hope to bring relief to the nation. It was for this object behind the law that a minimum sentence has been provided under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.

The question for adjudication thus arises whether the Court after conviction of the accused under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act can award the sentence lower than the minimum provided in the penal section. The terminology of the proviso to Section 16 of the Act is unambiguous and clear. In the ordinary course a person who is found guilty of an offence of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act shall not be sentenced less than six months and the same may extend for three years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1,000/ So a duty is imposed upon the Court to sentence a person proved to have committed an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act for at least not less than for a period of six months and with fine which shall not be less than Rs, 1,000/. However such rigorousness is softened under the proviso to Section 16 of the Act wherein the term of punishment can be imposed for a period not less than three months and with a fine not less than Rs. 500/ for the reasons recorded by the Court which appear to be sufficient to persuade the prudent and reasonable mind of the Court deciding the case to take a view towards the leniency of punishment as indicated above but in no case he can sentence a person less than three months and a fine not less than Rs. 500/.

The terminology and the language of the proviso is so well framed that no purport or indication can be drawn that the minimum punishment provided in it can be further scaled down. The concept of minimum sentence is in vogue since long and is in no manner new to our legal and judicial thought and there are only a few offences under the Penal Code which carry the minimum punishment. Now a days the trend in the criminal law is in favour of the harsh and deterrent punishment and it is in that scheme of the law that the minimum punishments have been provided for some offences in different Acts with regard to the menace of Food Adulteration, militancy/terrorism, narcotics, dowry deaths, tax evasion etc. with the sole object to have a determination to onslaught on this most antisocial behaviour of the society with a hope to bring relief to the nation.

In the instant case, on trial, the trial Court in his wisdom sentenced the respondent for one year''s rigorous imprisonment and with a fine of Rs. 2000/ with a default provision to undergo simple imprisonment for two months if the fine is not paid. The learned appellate Court, while agreeing with the trial Court on the findings recorded by him for the commission of the crime by the respondent has in the ends of justice reduced the sentence of the respondent from one year to till rising of the Court.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge had no authority to reduce the sentence in any manner and he could at best for the reasons recorded reduce it from one year to six months as postulated under Section 16 of the Act. He was not competent to reduce to till rising of the Court. He has transgressed his powers while taking refuge under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The constitutional matters fall for determination within the domain of the High Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court only. It is they alone who have to determine the constitutionality of a matter and the subordinate judiciary has no role to play in the interpretation of the Constitution. The respondent in the present case was all along on bail and no delay has been caused by the trial Court in disposal of the case. The respondent was involved for a serious offence against society and the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not scuttle the provisions of law and reduce the sentence when the minimum sentence is provided under the Act. It appears that the Additional Sessions Judge has not at all cared to go through the provisions of law before he reduced the sentence of the accused from one year to till rising of the Court.

There are no adequate special reasons on the basis of which lesser sentence could be imposed upon the respondent than as laid down under Section 16 of the Act. Hence, the order of the appellate Court is altered to the effect that the respondent is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ as well; in default of which he shall further undergo two months simple imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by the respondent shall be set off in his favour. The trial Court shall issue warrants of sentence against the respondent and the sentence shall be effective from the date he is sent to jail. This appeal is allowed accordingly. A copy of the judgment be sent to Sh. S.N. Chadha, Additional Sessions Judge, wherever he is posted.

It has been observed that often such a mistake is being committed by many of the subordinate Courts in awarding sentence till rising of the Court with a fine which is contrary to the law as adjudicated above. Hence, it would be proper that a copy of the judgment is sent to all the subordinate Courts who are dealing with the Food Adulteration Act cases for information and compliance.