1 S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 108/89 State Vs. Jeshmal Date of judgment : 24.4.2008 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH CHANDRA BHAGWATI, J. Mr. O.P. Rathi, P.P. Mr. P.N. Mohnani for the respondent. Being aggrieved with the quantum of punishment awarded to the accused respondent Jeshmal by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore whereby the lower court has on conviction in the offence under Sec. 7/16 Prevention of food Alteration Act sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment of one month, the State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of punishment. Having heard both the parties, considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the impugned judgment of the lower court, it is found that 2 the accused respondent was prosecuted for the violation of Rule 50 (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 wherein the accused respondent was required to obtain license to sell the articles of food. The accused Jeishmal moved an application for confession before Lok Adalat being held by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate praying that his case might be decided and he shall not repeat this offence in future. Keeping in view the spirit of Lok Adalat, the learned lower court took a lenient view in awarding the sentence to the accused respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the minimum sentence for the violation of Rule is prescribed under Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the court has not abide by the legislative intent. 3 Learned counsel for the accused respondent has controverted the contention of learned Public Prosecutor stating that there is no such minimum sentence prescribed for the violation in the Act. Keeping in view the fact that this appeal has been pending for the last 20 years, I do not feel proper to involve in the controversy that whether minimum sentence is prescribed for violation of rules or not? This court at this stage has to see as to whether ends of justice shall be meted out if this case is remitted back for retrial of the case. Or Will it serve the ends of justice if the punishment awarded to the accused respondent by the lower court is enhanced after a lapse of period of 20 years? I do not find any positive answer of both these questions. Learned trial court decided the case pursuant to the spirit of Lok Adalat that too with the consent of learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mangilal Patwa who was present in the court. Now after 20 years, at this stage, this court does not feel 4 inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of sentence of fine passed by the lower court. In view of the above, criminal appeal filed by the State for enhancement of the punishment does not deserve to be accepted and it is accordingly dismissed. (MAHESH CHANDRA BHAGWATI), J. ns.