http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT: KHUSHI RAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/1960
BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER
CITATION: 1960 AIR 905 1960 SCR (3) 427
ACT: Criminal Trial--Magistrate empowered to impose sentence Pro- vided--Commitment under impression of not being so empowered-- Trial by Court of Session on such commitment--Validity--Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), ss. 7, 16 and 21.--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), ss. 32, 207 and 347.
HEADNOTE: The respondent was prosecuted for offences under s. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate found the offences proved and he further found that the respondent had 428 committed the offence for the third time for which he was liable to be awarded a sentence of imprisonment for not less than two years and to a fine of not less than Rs. 3,000. Section 21 of the Act specifically empowered the Magistrate to impose this sentence, but as he was under the impression that s. 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure limited his power to impose sentences he committed the respondent to stand his trial before the Court of Session. The Court of Session found the respondent guilty and convicted him. On appeal the High Court held that the Magistrate had no power to commit and that the Sessions judge h...