JUDGMENT : M.K. Shah, J. Mr. G.T. Nanavaty, the learned PP., appearing for the State, submits that the nominal sentence prescribed under section 16 (1)(a)(i) is three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and the learned Magistrate was therefore, in error in awarding a minimum sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 150/- i.e. further S.I. for 30 days. The section provides that the imprisonment shall not be less than for a term of six months, but it may be extended to three years and the fine shall not be less than Rs. 1000/- but, by proviso, it is inter alia provided that if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food, being primary food, which is adulterated due to human agency, then, the Court may, for any adequate and special reason to be mentioned in the judgment, impose, a sentence of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to two years, and with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees. It will thus be seen that the learned Judicial Magistrate had no power to award a lesser sentence than the minimum prescribed viz. three month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and that too, can be imposed only if adequate and special reasons are mentioned by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his judgment. 2. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the relevant provisions of the Act and straight away passed an order stating that this being the first offence and the accused having assured that be will not repeat the offence, this was a fit case to be shown mercy. 3. It is rather queer to note that the judgment of the learned Magistrate in the case is a cyclo-styled one in which blanks are filled in On the top, the name of the Court appears with a blank that refers to the place of the Court. Then Exhibit number appears with blank space for the actual number to be inserted. Then appears Criminal Case No. with blank space for the number, followed by "of 19" after which there is a blank to fill in the year. Then Exhibit number appears with blank space for the actual number to be inserted. Then appears Criminal Case No. with blank space for the number, followed by "of 19" after which there is a blank to fill in the year. Then there is a blanks followed by the words 'complainant' and accused' with the word 'against' in between the two blanks. Then there is I space for inserting the section. Then, in bold letters, caption 'JUDGMENT' appears followed by two cyclo-styled paragraphs with some blanks. In the first paragraph, the blanks are for filling in sections and the Act under which the accused was being prosecuted. And, it is then stated that the contents of the complaint/charge-sheet are read over to the accused to which he had pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy. It is then stated that the plea of the accused being true and voluntary, is accepted by the learned Magistrate and therefore, he convicts him on his own plea. In the second paragraph, it is, inter alia, mentioned that the accused has prayed for mercy; that this is his first offence and that he had assured that he will not do the offence again and that, under the above circumstances, if mercy is shown, then, it will meet the ends of justice and, therefore, the learned Magistrate passes the order following. Then caption in bold letters 'ORDER' appears followed by the actual words stating that the accused is guilty for the offence under section (keeping a blank space for the section to be inserted), of (keeping a blank space for inserting the Act): and then, it is stated that he is, therefore, convicted for the same as per section 252 of Criminal Procedure Code and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. followed by a blank space where the amount is to be filled in. followed by the words "in default he shall undergo S.I. for "followed by a blank space for days. After the words "is ordered" and before the words" to pay a fine the words "to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court" are added in hand. followed by a blank space where the amount is to be filled in. followed by the words "in default he shall undergo S.I. for "followed by a blank space for days. After the words "is ordered" and before the words" to pay a fine the words "to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court" are added in hand. It is then mentioned that the judgment is pronounced in open Court on this (keeping space for date) day of keeping space for month 19 followed by a blank for inserting the year and the date 30' and month 'Nov.' and the year 77' are inserted in hand. Then is mentioned the place with a blank, were in 'Balasinor' has been inserted and date 30-11-77 has been inserted on the left hand side. On the right hand side appears the words 'Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor' above which the learned Magistrate appears to have placed his signature with the date 30-11'. 4. This shows that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind particularly to that part which refers to the sentence. First of all, such practice of getting prepared cyclostyled judgments keeping blanks to be filled in at the time of delivering the judgment shows an utter lack of responsibility on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate. This practice is strongly deprecated and sooner it is stopped the better. If one looks at the contents of paragraph 2, which is entirely cyclostyled, it is inter-alia mentioned therein that the accused submitted that this was his first offence and that he had assured that he will not do the offence again. Now, if one reads the purshis of the accused, which is filed at Ex. 23, apart from the fact that this is his first offence, he has stressed the grounds that he is a person of very old age that he is doing the business in the shop through servants and he also stated that it was found that in the sample of turmeric taken, it was found that salt was mixed and then he says that he regrets for this offence and then adds that he also conducts a shop of vegetables and then he admits his guilt and prays for mercy on the ground of his very old age and the offence being a first one. Thus the contents of his purshis do not tally with the cyclostyled portion of paragraph 2 of the judgment. This shows that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not applied his mind, not only to the provisions of the Act under which he was bound to award a minimum sentence of three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, but also to the grounds urged by the accused for showing mercy. The learned Magistrate was therefore, patently in error in awarding less than minimum punishment as provided by law. 5. In view of the grounds stated in the purshis of the accused, in my opinion, ends of justice will be met if the minimum punishment prescribed under the law is awarded viz. three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- i.e. further S.I. for 30 days. 6. Rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute.