M.C. Jain, J.
1. The accused-respondent was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food Inspector Shri Amrit Lal Vashishtha had purchased sample of milk from the accused-respondent on 19-10-1973. Necessary formalities were completed and on examination, the sample was found adulterated and thereafter a complaint was presented against the accused-respondent. The accused-respondent confessed the charge and on his plea of guilt, the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur convicted the accused-respondent for the said offence and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 600/- only.
2. In this appeal the State is only aggrieved against the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-respondent.
3. We have heared Shri R.C. Maheshwari learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Shri A.L. Mehta, learned counsel for the accused-respondent. Having heard them, we are of the opinion that the sentence of fine awarded to the accused-respondent calls for no interference. The offence dates back to 19-10-1973. Under the law then obtaining for awarding lesser sentence, the court was only required to record adequate and special reasons. The learned Magistrate has recorded the reasons for awarding lesser sentence. He has considered that the accused-respondent has confessed the guilt and besides that he has stated that the accused-respondent obtains milk from the cultivators and sells it. In our opinion, it can not be said that the reasons stated by the learned Magistrate fall short of adequate and special reasons. Under proviso (ii) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, sentence of imprisonment is not a 'must'. The word 'or' indicates that the sentence can be of imprisonment or of fine or of both although under the main substantive provision the requirement is that the sentence shall not be less than 6 months and it has to be with a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 1.000/-. So in view of the proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 16, the sentence awarded, need not be interfered with more particularly when almost a decade has lapsed since the commission of the offence. The appeal has, therefore, no force so it is hereby dismissed.