JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. 1. Jagannath son of Kale resident of Partappur District Meerut was prosecuted for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was convicted by the 1st Class Magistrate, Meerut by his order dated 11th July, 1972. The accused having confessed his guilt the Magistrate was inclined to take a very lenient view on the question of sentence. While convicting the accused under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Magistrate sentenced him to a fine of Rs.150/- (one hundred and fifty) only. In default he was to undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed by the Food Inspector before the Sessions Judge, Meerut, which was allowed on 18th September, 72. The Sessions Judge relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of our court (District Medical Officer of Health, Lucknow v. Binda Prasad, 1972 CrLJ 1967), took the view that the imposition of a sentence of fine, alone under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, was illegal. In his opinion a sentence of fine as well as of imprisonment should have been imposed. As such he made a reference to this court for setting aside the sentence of fine and for passing a legal and adequate sentence, as may be required by law. In these circumstances Criminal Reference No. 833 of 1972 came up for decision before a single Judge. The learned single Judge could not see eye to eye with the decision of the Division Bench of our court. He was unable to persuade himself to agree with the above view. As such he proposed that the matter be referred to a larger Bench to reconsider the following question : "Whether it is mandatory for a court convicting an accused person for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to award a sentence of fine as well as imprisonment, even in a case where clauses (i) or (ii) of the Proviso of Section 16 (1) arc applicable and special or adequate reasons have been given." In these circumstances the reference has been placed before this Full Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the impugned orders. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also perused the impugned orders. In order to examine this question, it would not be out of place to consider the relevant Section as it stood originally in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 3. Section 16 (1) of the said Act ran as follows : "(1) If any person- (a) Whether by himself or by any person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes, any article of food in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder, or.................. (g) ............he shall, in addition to the penalty which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable............... (i) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both, (ii) for a second offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees, (iii) for a third and subsequent offence for a term which may extend to four years and with fine : Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than three thousand rupees." 4. It is clear from the aforesaid section that under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, varying punishments were prescribed for the first, second and third offence committed under the Act. For the first offence a sentence of 1 year's R. I. or a fine up to two thousand rupees or both could be inflicted, but when the second offence was committed by the accused, it became necessary to inflict a sentence of imprisonment up to two years and fine also. For the third and subsequent offences, the punishment was made still more stringent; the term of imprisonment was extended to four years and with fine. For the third and subsequent offences, the punishment was made still more stringent; the term of imprisonment was extended to four years and with fine. Even under the proviso of sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) where special and adequate reasons existed for taking a lenient view, it was clearly specified that imprisonment and fine was to be awarded. Clause (i) used the conjunction 'or' but (ii) and (iii) clauses used the conjunction 'and'. This clearly indicated that whereas under the (i) clause imprisonment or fine could be imposed in the alternative, under the (ii) and (iii) clauses there was no option left to the court, but to inflict both, a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. After several years of practical working, it was perhaps thought by the legislature that the penal clauses, embodied in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, were not stringent enough to have a deterrent effect upon the anti-social elements in our society who continued to feed fat upon the financial benefits accruing from the sale of adulterated stuffs at the cost of human well being. A Bill was, therefore, introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20th December, 1973, which was referred to the Joint-Committee of the Houses. The report of the Joint-Committee published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 2 dated 20th December, 1973, has been perused by us very carefully. In para 21 of the aforesaid report, the views of the Committee are partly expressed thus :- "The committee, while agreeing that there should be a minimum sentence of imprisonment for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, feel that prescription of different punishments for the first, second, third and subsequent offences may fetter the hands of the court in awarding higher punishment in the case of a first or second offence if it is so called for according to the gravity of the offence. To avoid this the Committee have suggested that for all offences under the Act or the rules made thereunder, there should be a minimum sentence of imprisonment,, for a term of not less than six months, and of fine, of not less than one thousand rupees, and a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term of six years,, whether the offence be the first, second,, third etc. However, in the case of technical offences like the import, manufacture sale of an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (1) of Clause (i) of section 2 or which is mis-branded under sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of Section 2, the Committee feel that a discretion should be given to the count to award a lesser sentence of imprisonment and fine than the minimum sentence off imprisonment of six months and of fine of one thousand rupees............ Subsection (1) of Section 16 of the Act has been modified suitably for the purpose." 5. In view of the above report of the Joint-Committee, Act 49 of 1964 was passed. Section 16 of the Act as it stood after the amendment of 1964 runs as follows :- (1) If any person- (a) Whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food ...........................he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of Section 6, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees : Provided that : (i) if the offence is under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and is with respect to an article of food which is adulterated under sub-clause (/) of clause (i) of Section 2 or misbranded under sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of that Section ; or (ii) if the offence is under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), the court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of fine less than one thousand rupees or of both imprisonment for a term of less than six months and fine of less than one thousand rupees." 6. A scrutiny of the aforesaid section indicates that the punishment prescribed under Section 16 of the amended Act shall not be less than 6 months imprisonment and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees, but in the proviso (ii) where the benefit of lesser sentence is provided for adequate and special reasons, it is mentioned that the courts may impose a sentence of imprisonment for less than 6 months or of fine less than one thousand rupees or of both. The argument advanced on behalf of respondents is that the use of the word 'or' in proviso (ii) gives a discretion to the court either to award a sentence of imprisonment or of fine or of both. The question is whether the latter interpretation should be accepted or not ? We have already discussed above the report of Joint Committee and we have referred to the relevant portions therein which disclosed the intention of the members of Committee to give a discretion to the court to award a lesser sentence of imprisonment than six months and a fine of less than the minimum amount of one thousand rupees. It is with that end in view that the section after its amendment authorised the court for adequate and special reasons to award a lesser sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. The law is now well settled that the principal section and the proviso have to be read together and that the proviso must take the colour of the principal section. To be more explicit, punishment has been clearly prescribed under the principal Sec. 16 itself, and it includes a sentence of imprisonment plus a sentence of fine. The proviso to Section 16 only governs the quantum of the sentence. Imprisonment can be less than six months, fine can be less than one thousand, or both can be less than six months and one thousand. If it was intended by the legislature to provide a sentence of imprisonment or of fine in the alternative, then it could have said so in the principal section itself by authorising the courts to pass a lesser sentence of fine or imprisonment or both for special and adequate reasons. 7. A reference has been made in the referring order to the decision of a Division Bench, Nanak Chand v. State of U. P., 1971 AWR 739. 7. A reference has been made in the referring order to the decision of a Division Bench, Nanak Chand v. State of U. P., 1971 AWR 739. That was a case in which an article of food had been coloured by a prohibited dye. The offence was thus complete. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Hapur had sentenced the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of one thousand rupees. A reference was made to this court by the Sessions Judge that the sentence was not in conformity with the one prescribed under Section 16 of the Act. This court took the view that unless there are adequate and special reasons, the minimum sentence prescribed by law must be awarded. In that view of the matter, the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court awarded by the Magistrate was enhanced to 6 months' R.I. by this court. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand only) was maintained. In the Division Bench case it was nowhere laid down that if the court found that there were adequate and special reasons for the reduction of sentence, then it was open to the court to award either a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine. In our opinion, therefore, this decision is of no help in deciding the matter in controversy now. 8. Before, however, parting with the case we would like to observe that the malady of adulteration is now on such a tremendous increase in our State that it is difficult, nay, almost impossible to obtain an article of food which is not adulterated. The practice of improving one's financial prospects at the expense of the health of the community, is not only abnoxious but also highly detrimental to the interest of society. By Amendment Act 49 of 1964, the maximum term of imprisonment with which an adulterator could be punished was six years' R. I. plus a fine not less than one thousand rupees, but even that sentence does not appear to have had any salutary effect upon the anti-social activities of the adulterator. As such in the year 1976, the legislature has come forward with a still more stringent and stiff hand by amending the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by Act No. 34 of 1976. As such in the year 1976, the legislature has come forward with a still more stringent and stiff hand by amending the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by Act No. 34 of 1976. This amendment has been published in the Gazette Extraordinary Part II, Section (1) on 17th February, 76. The legislature has now gone to the extent of enhancing the punishment in certain circumstances up to a term of imprisonment for life and of fine not less than five thousand rupees. This stringency shows which way the wind is blowing. Even when adequate and special reasons exist now, in certain cases, for the infliction of a lesser punishment, the legislature has again reiterated its intention of awarding a sentence of imprisonment as well as of fine. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that even while showing clemency to an accused for special and adequate reasons under clauses (i) and (ii) of the proviso to Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is incumbent upon the court to inflict a sentence on him of imprisonment as well as of fine. The decision of the Lucknow Bench of our Court in District Medical Officer of Health Lucknow v. Bifida Prasad, 1972 CrLJ 1967, is hereby approved. 9. This reference is answered accordingly. The papers shall now be placed before the learned single Judge for passing such a sentence as he may deem fit in accordance with law, while upholding the conviction of the accused under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Reference answered.