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 10-6-87 in Criminal Case No. 699 of 1986 whereby the respondent accused were convicted for the offences punishable under S. 7 read with S. 16 (1) 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/- in default to undergo 7 days RI. ( 2 ) ON 26-3-86 the complainant took sample of groundnut oil from the shop of the respondents accused, which was found to be adulterated. Therefore, Criminal Case No. 699 of 1986 was filed by the complainant before the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , Rajpipla. The accused remained present before the Court through their advocate and submitted purshis Exh. 35 stating that they want to plead guilty and, therefore, charge may be framed. Accordingly charge was framed at Exh. 36. Pursuant to that charge, statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 37 and Exh. 38. As per Exh. 38 accused pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate imposed the sentence less than the minimum required under the Act. Under the Act minimum sentence of 6 months RI is required. The petitioner has, therefore preferred this Revision Application for enhancing the sentence. ( 3 ) THIS matter was on the board since 15-6-93. On 15th and 16th twice this matter was called out, but the learned advocate for the petitioner remained absent. Today also he remained absent and in his absence this matter was taken up. ( 4 ) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate imposing sentence of till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 300/- on the face of it is bad because there is no option for the Court but to impose sentence of 6 months RI as required under S. 16 (1) of the Act. ( 4 ) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate imposing sentence of till rising of Court and fine of Rs. 300/- on the face of it is bad because there is no option for the Court but to impose sentence of 6 months RI as required under S. 16 (1) of the Act. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the offence was committed on 26-3-86 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 tiled 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. ( 5 ) IN view of above discussion, this Revision Application fails and it is rejected. Rule discharged. Revision application dismissed. .