GANESHMAL JASHRAJ versus GOVT. OF GUJARAT ANP ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1114 · Decided: 30-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
c 
D 
E 
I' 
G 
H 
1114 
GANESIL!\1AL JASHRAJ 
v. 
GOVT. OF GUJARAT ANP ANR. 
October 30, 1979 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND V. D. TULzAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Sentence-Minimum sentence prescribed by Statute under the Prcve11tion of 
Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Accused not pleading guilty under sec1fon 229' 
of the Crl.P.C., but. does so in writing as a result of plea bargaining after his 
examination under Section 313 Crl.P.C.-Magistrate not convicting on the plea 
of guilt alone, but sentencing less than .the statutory minin1um~Whether the 
sen1ence is vitiated-Criminal Procedure Code Ss. 229, 235 r/w S. 16 of POFA, 
1954. 
The appellant was charged for an offence under section 16(a)(l) of the 
Preventive of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling 
adulterated turmeric 
powder to Respondent No. 2, the Food Inspector in the employ of the State .. 
Even though the appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence charged against him 
and chose to be tried, after his examination under section 313 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, as a result of •'Plea Bargaining" he submitted an application 
admitting his guilt and praying for leniency towards hin1 due to the fact that 
hei was a poor man and his offence a first one, The Magistrate, thereupori made 
an order convicting the appellant of the offence under section 16(a)(l) POFA, 
1954, arid sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment till the rising of. the 
Court aod to pay a fine of Rs. 300 /- or i~ default to suffer further rigorous 
imprisonment for one month. 
The High Court, coming to know through ao· aoonymous application that 
the appellant was let off lightly with one day's simple imprisonment in breach 
of the mandatory requirement of the Act, in suo niotu exercise of its revisional. 
jurisdiction issued show cause notice to the appellant for enhancing the sen-
tence and after hearing the appellant affirmed the conviction, ·but enhanced the 
sentence to three months' simple imprisonment and also increased the fine tO 
Rs. 500/-· 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
JJELD : When there is an admission of guilt made by the accused as a· · 
result of "plea bargaining" or other\vise, the evaluation of the evidence by the.. 
Court is likely to become a little superficial and perfunctory and the Court 
may, be disposed to refer to the evidence not critically with. a view to assessing. 
its. credibility, but mechanically as a matter of formality in support of the ad.mis-
sion of guilt. 
The entire approach of the Court to the assessment of the 
evidence v,rould be likely to be different when thefe is an admission of guilt by 
the accused. 
[1117 B-DJ 
In the instant case, it is true that the learned magistrate did not base his 
order of conviction solely-on the admission of guilt made by the appellant, but 
it is clear from his judgment that l1is conclusion "·as not unaffected by the 
I 
GANESHMAL v. GUJARAT (Bhagwati, !.) 
1115 
admission of guilt on th~ part of the appellant and in the circumstances, it 
~ 
would not be right to sustain the convic)ion of the appellant. [1117 B-C] 
[The Court, therefore, remanded the case to the Trial Court for further 
steps from the· stage of examination under S. 313 of the Crl.P.C. The 
Court also deprecated the manner in which the cases under POFA 
are booked and investigated (for statistical purposes_) by the authorities 
O.nd inJicated ceftain gui9e lines so that the true purpose of the pre-
vention of Food Adulteration Law be fulfilled and the great gap bet-
ween expectation and fulfilment in respect of welfare laws be bridged.] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 632 
of 1979. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 / 
30-1-1979 of the Gujarat High Court iii Criminal Revision App\ica-· 
Hon No .. 499 /78. 
K. N. Bhatt for the Appellant. 
" 
M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Conrt was delivered ·by 
BHAGWATI, J. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against a 
jUdgment of the Gnjarat High Court enhancing the sentence imposed 
on the appellant by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhagadia, for 
an offence under se~tion 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, 1954. 
The appellant was charged before the learned Judicial Magistrate 
for an offence under section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Act for selling adul-
terated tnrmeric powder to respondent No. 2 who was, at the mate-
rial time, a Food Inspector in the employ of the State. The appellant 
pleaded not guilty t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.