B. J. DIVAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been made by the Bhavnagar Municipality through its Food Inspector J. J. Trivedi for enhancement of the sentences passed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under sec. 16 (1) (A) (i) and 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 The case was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhavnagar and the two accused who were partners of the firm of Chandulal Hasmukhrai from whom the adulterated groundnut-oil was found had pleaded guilty to the charge. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the complainant had purchased ground-nut oil from accused No. 1 who was present at the godown where the partnership firm was dealing in ground-nut oil. There were packed and unpacked tins of ground-nut oil and the Food Inspector of the Bhavnagar Municipality had taken samples from unpacked tins as also from the packed tins after following the usual procedure. The analysis by the Public Analyst showed that the samples contained castor-oil and did not conform to the various tests. At the trial the accused pleaded guilty but they prayed for mercy on the grounds that (1) they had purchased the oil from the New Swastik Oil Mills (2) they did not know the requirements of law (3) they had stopped their business (4) they were young men and (5) this was the first offence alleged against them. The learned Magistrate felt that the ends of justice would be served if under the proviso to sec. 16 (i) a lesser punishment is awarded to the accused in view of the above reasons. He therefore convicted the accused under secs. 16 (1) (a) (i) and 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He sentenced each of the accused to imprisonment the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/in default of payment to undergo S. I. for 20 days for the offence under sec. 16 (1) (A) (i ). He also sentenced each of the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 20/in default of payment to undergo S. I. for 7 days for the offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the said Act. 16 (1) (A) (i ). He also sentenced each of the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 20/in default of payment to undergo S. I. for 7 days for the offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the said Act. No separate sentences were passed in respect of the another case also against the accused and he directed that the ground-nut oil tins lying with the Municipality be destroyed. ( 3 ) AGAINST the order of sentence by the learned Magistrate a revision application was filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bhavnagar asking for enhancement of the sentences. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate were cogent reasons and he saw no reason to interfere with the sentences passed by the learned Magistrate and hence he dismissed the revision application. Thereafter the present revision application was filed before this High Court praying for enhancement of the sentences passed against the accused. ( 4 ) MR. Mehta for the petitioner very fairly stated that the case fell within the proviso to sec. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and therefore the learned Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass a sentence less than six months or to impose fine less than Rs. 1000/or both imprisonment for a term of less than six months and fine of less than one thousand rupees. Imprisonment for six months and a payment of fine of Rs. 1000/is the minimum which has been prescribed under the main body of sec. 16. The main contention urged by Mr. Mehta before me was that looking to the importance of the subject matter namely prevention of food adulteration and looking to the benefit that was intended to be achieved for the society the view taken by the learned Magistrate regarding the sentence is very lenient and moreover none of the grounds which were considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of passing the sentence had any bearing with the main purpose which the Act seeks to subserve. ( 5 ) IN my view Mr. Mehtas contention must be accepted and more so when one finds that adulteration of foodstuffs is going on in our society on a large scale and there is hardly any item of food stuff which is not found to be adulterated. ( 5 ) IN my view Mr. Mehtas contention must be accepted and more so when one finds that adulteration of foodstuffs is going on in our society on a large scale and there is hardly any item of food stuff which is not found to be adulterated. The Legislature has placed on the statute book this beneficial piece of social legislation so that those who indulge in adulteration or who sell adulterated foodstuffs without taking care to see that the foodstuffs are not adulterated are properly punished and the minimum has been prescribed by the Legislature to see that the main purposes of the Act are not frustrated. In my view it is necessary that too lenient a view of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should not be taken. But for the fact that the learned Magistrate has passed the order in the month of February 1970 and I am called ton to enhance the sentence in the month of November 1970 1 would have certainly enhanced the sentence of imprisonment which was for one days simple imprisonment. Unless deterrent sentence is passed and those who deal in adulterated foodstuffs and try to pass off as respectable members of the society are sent to prison and made to realise that this type of crime does not pay society will suffer. In my opinion at any rate the fine of Rs. 50/imposed on each of the accused is too lenient. I enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/imposed on each of the accused to Rs. 250/for the offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (A) (i) Similarly as regards the offence punishable under sec. 16 (1) (A) (ii) of the Act the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 20/only on each of the accused. That fine is enhanced to Rs. 200. 00. In default of payment of fine the orders passed by the learned Magistrate to remain. ( 6 ) IN the result the criminal revision application is allowed and the sentences are enhanced accordingly. Rule is made absolute. Sentences enhanced. .