B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is filed by the Food Inspector, who is the original complainant, for enhancing the sentence imposed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Rajpipla on 10-6-1987 in Criminal Case No. 699 of 1986 whereby the respondent-accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 16 (l)A (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1954 ("act" for short and sentenced them till rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. 00, in default to undergo 7 days R. I. ( 2 ) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate imposing sentence of till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 300. 00 on the face of it is bad because there is no option for the Court but to impose sentence of 6 (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published.) months R. I. as required under Sec. 16 (1) of the Act. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the offence was committed on 26-3-1986 and that the complainant was present at the relevant time and it was the duty of the complainant to point out to the learned Magistrate that minimum sentence ought to have been imposed when the accused pleaded guilty to the charge, which he failed to do, the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of that plea bargaining and then come to the Court and make grievance that the sentence imposed is less than the minimum and, therefore, the sentence should be enhanced. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though I do not agree with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not propose to interfere with the Revision application filed by the private complainant, particularly when State has not preferred any appeal. These are the discretionary powers and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not intend to exercise my power. ( 3 ) IN view of above discussion, this Revision Application fails and it is rejected Rule discharged. .