KASAMBHAI ARDUL REHMANBHAI SHAIKH versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 13-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI, A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
.... 
' -\ 
l0'.l7 
KASAMBHAI ARDUL REHMANBHAI SHAIKH 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
February 13, 1980 
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, Sertioru. 7 and 16-Plea-bar-
gaining-Magistrate if co1npetent to record conviction if 
ar.cused 
pleads 
·guilty. 
Cri1ninal Trial-Judgn1ent-Cyclostyled fonn in which nzerely blanks filled 
by Magistrate-Such Disposal-Reprehensible Policy. 
Sentencing-Offences of food adulteration-Deterrent and 
punitive sen-
tences-Necessity for. 
The appellants were prosecuted for con1mitting offences 
under 
section 
16(l)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 
1954. After some evidence \vas led on behalf of 
the 
prosecution, 
ple:l.-
bargaining took place between the prosecution, the accused and the :r..1agistrate. 
A 
n 
c 
The accused pleaded guilty which plea Vi1as accepted by the Magistrate. The 
D 
accused were accordingly convicted a,nd sentenced to undergo imprisonment 
till the rising of the Court and to pay a sn1all fine. 
The High Court initiated suo n1otu proceeding in revision. The accused 
appeared and challenged the convictions recorded against them, but the High 
Court did not go into the circumstances in which the plea of guilty 
was 
entered, enhanced the sentences in1poscd on them to three 
months' 
simple 
E 
imprisonment a.nd fine. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : 1. A conviction based on the plea of guilty 
entered 
by the 
accused as a result of plea-bargaining cannot be sustained. [1041EJ 
2. The I-Iigh Court was clearly in error in not setting aside the conviction 
and sending the case back to the Magistrate for trial in ,accordance. with Jaw, 
ignoring the plea of guilty entered by the appellants. 
[1041F] 
3. The Magistrate trying an accused for a serious offence like adulteration 
must apply his mind to the evidence recorded before him and, on the facts 
.as they emerge from the evidence, decide \\-'hether the accused is guilty or 
not. 
[1040B] 
In the instant case the 1fagistrate had got a cyclostyled form of judg-
ment in which merely blanks were filled in by him. This clearly indicates 
that the Magistrate \Vas in the habit of encouraging 
plea~bargaining and 
letting off the accused lightly if there was a plea. of guilty, enabling quick 
disposal without any effort. This Was a highly reprehensible practice. 
The 
High Court had expressed strong disapproval of it. 
[1039H-1040A] 
F 
G 
4. (i) It is highly regrettable that the prosecution as well as the 1fagistrate 
0 
should have been a. party to any plea-bargaining in a prosecution for adultera-
tion· ·iiivolVing the health and well-being of the comn1unity. Adulteration has 
A 
B 
c 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l980J 2 !>.C.il. 
assumed alarming proportions and it is essential to \vipe it out ruthlessly and 
completely by bringing to book offenders responsible for adulteration resulting 
in ruination of the health of the people. The investigating agencies must .intensify 
their effo1ts and catch hold of those who for private economic 
gain 
are 
prepared to jeopardize the health of the community. 
When such persons are 
arraigned before the Court and found guilty a deterrent and punitive sentence 
must be imposed upon thctn. 
[1039E-CJ] 
(ii) If it is possible to get a\vay with a light sentence in respect of an 
offence of adnltera.tion the anti-adultcratio11 hl\v will cease to 
have 
any 
meaning and validity. 
[1039H] 
5. Administration of justice is a sacred t~L'~k and partakes of the divine 
function. 
Jt is with the greatest sense of responsibility and anxiety that the 
judicial officer must discharge his judicial function, pa.rticularly when it con-
·cc:Tis the liberty of a person. 
[1040C] 
6. It would be contrary to public policy to allo\v a conviction 
to 
be 
recorded against an accused by inducing hlln to confess to a plea of guilty 
on an allurement being held out to him that if he enters a plea of guilty, 
he will be let off very lightly. Such .a. procedure would be 
clearly 
un-
reasonable, unfair and unjust and would be violative of Art. 21 
of the 
D 
Constitution. 
It \VOtil<l have the effect of polluting the pure fount of justice, 
because it might induce an innocent accused to plead guilty to suffer a light 
and inconsequential punishn1cnt rather than go through a long and ardous 
criminal trial. The judge also might be likely to be deflected from the path 
of duty to do justice and he n1ight either convict an in

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