the prosecution led the evidence of respondent number 2 and one thakurbhai who was one of the panch witnesses in whose presence the turmeric powder was purchased by respondent number 2 and the certificate of the public analyst showing that the turmeric powder was adulterated was also tendered in evidence.
on the same day presumably as a result of plea bargaining to which the learned judicial magistrate was also perhaps a party the appellant submitted an application admitting his guilt and praying that since he was a poor man and this was his first offence leniency should be shown to him.
the appellant pleaded number guilty to the offence charged against him and a trial was thereupon held by the learned judicial magistrate.
this decision of the high companyrt is assailed in the present appeal preferred by the appellant after obtaining special leave from this companyrt.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 29/ 30 1 1979 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal revision application number 499/78.
the prosecution closed its case and thereafter the appellant was examined by the learned judicial magistrate under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure.
500/ .
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 632 of 1979.
the appellant was charged before the learned judicial magistrate for an offence under section 16 1 a i of the act for selling adulterated turmeric powder to respondent number 2 who was at the material time a food inspector in the employ of the state.
n. shroff for the respondent.
this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the gujarat high companyrt enhancing the sentence imposed on the appellant by the judicial magistrate first class jhagadia for an offence under section 16 1 a i of the prevention of food adulteration act 1954.
n. bhatt for the appellant.
the order of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati.j.
