SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 221

2000(6) Supreme 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Santosh Kumar -Appellant
versus
Municipal Corporation & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1385 of 1999
Decided on 31-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Respondent No. 2 : State : Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Advocate.

Headnote:Prevention of Food Adulteration Act-Section 16(1)(A) r/w Section 7(1)-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 433(d)-Conviction for adulteration of ground-nut oil-Sentence of 6 months R-I and fine of Rs. 2000 awarded by Trial Court-Confirmed by High Court-Ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health-It was found adulteration solely on ground constitutents fell below standard very marginally-Appropriate case for commutation of sentence-Sentence of 6 months commuted with fine of Rs. 10000.

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Appellant stood convicted under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavekhara1. The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article - ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the standard very marginally. To convince us of the said contention learned counsel produced a copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis is incorporated therein as follows :

"(a) B.R. reading to 40oC 58.8

(b) Iodine Value 100.8

(c) Saponification Value 180.6

(d) Free fatty acids as Oleic acid 0.3%

(e) Bellier test (Turbidity temp. Acetic acid method) 23.8oC"

4. This case seems to be almost on a parallel with the facts enumerated in the decision cited above. We are also persuaded to extend the same benefit which the appellant in the aforesaid decision was granted by this Court, as this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial Court a sum of Rs.10,000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of 6 months imprisonment within a period of 6 weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of the fine the State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the meanwhile the appellant will remain on bail.

6. With this end result, this appeal stands disposed of.

(C.R.) Order accordingly.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top