JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated May 14, 1968, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aklera, convicted Beharilal on his Plea of being guilty and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 5 days' rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act (Act No. XXXVII of 1954) for the offence of selling adulterated goat's milk. The State preferred an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, and he has by his reference dated 4-11-1968 recommended a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. Mr. Mohnani, learned counsel for the State, urged that under the extant law the minimum sentence for selling any article of food which is adulterated is a term of 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- unless "for any adequate or special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment" the court imposes a sentence below this minimum. In this case, urged the counsel, there are no circumstances justifying any reduction from the minimum. 3. Mr. Mathur, who opposes the recommendation, submitted that Beharilal is a Banjara and therefore a member of a backward class. The amount of milk he had was small and the accused being not a regular vendor and a poor man deserves lenient punishment. He submitted that the sample was taken from him on 21-1-1967, the complaint was made on 19-7-1967 and the judgment was delivered on 14-5-1968, and on account of this delay in the presentation of the complaint the accused was deprived of a valuable right under Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, he should be acquitted. 4. We first propose to examine the question of delay with reference to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 13(2) undoubtedly confers a right on the accused-vendor to have the sample given to him, examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and to obtain a certificate on the basis of the analysis of that sample. 4. We first propose to examine the question of delay with reference to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 13(2) undoubtedly confers a right on the accused-vendor to have the sample given to him, examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and to obtain a certificate on the basis of the analysis of that sample. The Supreme Court considering this aspect of the matter in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, A. I. R. 1967 Supreme Court, 970 , observed : "It is when the accused exercises this right that a certificate has to be given by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and that certificate then supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst. If, in any case, the accused does not choose to exercise this right, the case against him can be decided on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst." In the case before us the accused never chose to exercise this right. He pleaded guilty and in his plea he has admitted that he had put some water in the 'Lota' and after shaking it added to the milk. The exact words employed by the accused are : "Main Jurm Swikar Karta Hoon, Maine Lota Jhakor Kar Pani Dala Tha." The valuable right becomes valueless in the face of this admission and without any contest regarding the Public Analyst's report. There is no substance in this objection of the learned counsel for the accused. 5. The legislature while amending the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 1964 provided a minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- for selling adulterated food. This is an expression of the righteous indignation of the community against offences of this kind with the object of preserving and promoting the well being of the society. A relaxation from the rigour of the minimum is permitted 'for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment'. The ambit of the Court's discretion in awarding a sub-minimum sentence is to be regulated by reasons which are special as distinguished from common-place. Such reasons have to be adequate that is sufficiently weighty. The Court has to further express those reasons in the judgment enabling the superior Courts and the society to know the grounds for the grant of indulgence. Such reasons have to be adequate that is sufficiently weighty. The Court has to further express those reasons in the judgment enabling the superior Courts and the society to know the grounds for the grant of indulgence. What could be adequate and special reasons for imposing a subminimum sentence. Such reasons must necessarily relate to the gravity of the crime; the position of the offender and the surrounding circumstances. The Court while awarding punishment has to seriously consider the commands of law and the ambit of the judicial discretion conferred by it. It is plain that the object of providing a minimum substantive sentence and substantial pecuniary punishment is to discourage and deter antisocial elements in society who motivated by avarice cause incalculable harm to human health. The need for amending this part of the law presumably arose from the prevalence of the evil. The laconic manner in which the learned Magistrate awarded a sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- is clearly contrary to law. Before we consider the reasons urged by the learned counsel for the accused for leniency it will be profitable to refer to a few reported cases on the question of sentence after 1964 when the law was amended. 6. In Ram Dass v. The State A.I.R. 1969 Allahabad, 109 , the learned Judge in a case for adulteration of milk held that those who indulge in adulteration of food are parasites to the society and if an offence is made out against them, there is no reason why a punishment contemplated under the law may not be awarded to them. In State v. Jwalaprasad Dube A.I.R. 1969 Bombay 360 , Kotwal, C. J. observed that the adulteration of milk is an anti-social offence which affects the health of the people and such offences cannot be treated lightly. Unless there are any special and adequate reasons which must be mentioned in the judgment the minimum sentence must be imposed. It is the duty of the Magistrate not to give way to misplaced sentimentality but to apply the law. In this case the learned Magistrate imposed a smaller sentence because the accused was a respectable man; the adulteration was not large scale; he pleaded guilty and was repentant. It is the duty of the Magistrate not to give way to misplaced sentimentality but to apply the law. In this case the learned Magistrate imposed a smaller sentence because the accused was a respectable man; the adulteration was not large scale; he pleaded guilty and was repentant. The learned Chief Justice said that he did not think a person who diluted milk by adding 28.8% water in it and sold it to the public for money was a respectable person. Pleading guilty and being repentant were no reasons to award him lesser sentence because it would make a mockery of this law. The learned Chief Justice did not agree that 28.8% of water was a small scale adulteration and awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In Kassirn Kunju Pookunju and another v. K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai and another, 1969 Cr. Appeals Reporter (SC) 15 , the High Court had enhanced the sentence to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and Grover, J. did not interfere when the matter went before the Supreme Court. The Patna High Court, however, in Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee v. Durga Prasad 1969 Crl. L. J. 704 imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- only in a case of adulteration of Haldi (turmeric) because 31/2 years had elapsed from the date of the offence. 7. So far as the nature of the crime before us is concerned there is an adulteration of 30% added water vide Ex. P/5, the report of the Public Analyst. This, in our opinion, is no small scale adulteration and we agree with the Bombay view quoted above that if more water was added then it would have been adding milk to water. Cheating the purchaser and depriving the consumer of the nutrition for which he has paid for are writ large in the process of adulteration of the milk. There is no extenuating circumstance. Regarding the quantity of milk the charge-sheet speaks of a "Chari"a pitcher common to Rajasthan. It can be of any size and we do not know what was the size in this case. No special reason emerges from the quantity either. 8. The next circumstance urged by the learned counsel for Beharilal is that he is a Banjara and belongs to the backward class. It can be of any size and we do not know what was the size in this case. No special reason emerges from the quantity either. 8. The next circumstance urged by the learned counsel for Beharilal is that he is a Banjara and belongs to the backward class. In matters of punishment for crime, backward classes have no concessions. What perhaps is reasonable is that while inflicting pecuniary punishment the capacity of the convict shall be given due regard. It was urged that Beharilal being a Banjara is a poor man and we shall keep this factor in our mind while awarding the punishment of fine. 9. In so far as the question of delay is concerned the complaint was presented a little less than 6 months after the sample was taken and the Food Inspector appeared to give his evidence some seven months after the accused appeared. But having regard to the average time taken in such eases it is nothing extraordinary. While not approving it we take this opportunity of observing that speed is necessary for correctional impact on the offender and deterrent effects on anti-social elements. The agency enforcing this Act will do well to appreciate the virtue of promptitude. We cannot congratulate the prosecution agency for such leisurely behaviour. Is it an adequate and special reason in the circumstances of this case for reducing the sentence below the minimum provided by the law ? We are of the opinion it is not. 10. Excepting the poverty of the accused there are no special and adequate reasons for imposing a sub-minimum sentence. We accordingly enhance the sentence of the accused to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default thereof to undergo an additional sentence of one month's rigorous .imprisonment. Credit will be given for the fine if already paid by the accused. 11. Beharilal is not before us. The District Magistrate Jhalawar is directed to cause Beharilal to be arrested to serve the sentence awarded to him.Sentence enhanced. *******