JUDGMENT - N.B. Naik, J.:---This matter has been evidently referred to us for deciding the question whether the High Court can issue a suo motu notice of enhancement of sentence after coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the view, which we have taken, of the case it is not necessary to decide that question. 2. The accused in this case were prosecuted for offences under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant before charge, actually framed a charge against the accused of offences under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and he framed a charge under section 7(1) read with section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against accused No. 4, which is a firm of which accused Nos. 1 to 3 are partners. 3. After the charge was read over and explained to the accused, accused No. 2 pleaded guilty to the charge. Accused No. 3 also pleaded guilty to the charge and he added that the carbonated water manufactured by this firm for human consumption contained bacteria, although that was no part of the charge. 4. The learned Magistrate accepted the plea of guilty by these accused and as evidently the case fell under the second proviso of section 16(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for the reasons recorded by him in the judgment, awarded a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in respect of each of the accused. 5. News about this conviction being published in the paper, one of the learned Judges of this Court after perusing the news item thought it was a matter of enhancing the sentence. This is how the matter was placed before a Single Judge of this Court and a rule was issued. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench. As we have pointed out earlier, evidently this is a case which was covered by the second proviso of section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench. As we have pointed out earlier, evidently this is a case which was covered by the second proviso of section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, the Magistrate could for adequate and special reasons mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than one thousand rupees. The Magistrate in this judgment has observed as under : "Regarding the sentence, it is pointed out by the accused that the water they obtained from the taps is used in the manufacturer of aerated water, and if the impurities found have crept in they could not help it. This is not a good excuse because the accused should filter the water before use. However, this is a small factory which the accused say they have closed." It is for these reasons that the Magistrate observed that he did not want to impose the minimum sentence of imprisonment. It would appear that it could not be said that the learned Magistrate has not given adequate and special reasons for awarding a lesser sentence than the prescribed minimum. Since that is sufficient to discharge the rule, we think it unnecessary to decide the question as to whether this Court can issue a suo motu notice of enhancement after coming into force the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 6. The rule is discharged. ------