Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
1. Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (In Cri. App. No. 37 of 1963). 2. Daryanomal and another. (In Cri. App. No. 113 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another (In both the appeals), Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 57 and 118 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
M/s. V. B. Ganatra and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Appellant (In Cri. App. No. 57 of 1968); M/s. Frank Anthony, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agrawala, Advocates, for Appellants (in Cri. App. 113 of 1963): Mr. S. G. Patwardhan, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent State (In both the appeals).
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 - S. 7 (v), 11, 13 (5), 16 (1) (a) - ADULTERATED FOOD - REPORT OF PUBLIC ANALYST - ADMISSIBILITY - EVIDENCE ACT (1872), S. 510 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (1898), S. 537 (b) - JOINT TRIAL - VALIDITY - SANCTION - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION - OFFENCE COMMITTED PARTLY IN ONE LOCAL AREA AND PARTLY IN ANOTHER - S. 182, CR. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
Mangaldas, a wholesale dealer in spices, sold and dispatched a bag of turmeric powder to Daryanomal, a grocer in Nasik. Kodumal, Daryanomal's servant, took delivery of the bag at the octroi post and sold 12 oz. of turmeric powder to the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst's report showed that the turmeric powder was adulterated. Mangaldas, Daryanomal, and Kodumal were convicted under S. 16 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them, but the High Court restored the sentences of Mangaldas and Daryanomal and imposed a fine on Kodumal.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the report of the Public Analyst was admissible in evidence under S. 13 (5) of the Act and that the trial court was not bound to call the Public Analyst as a witness. The court also held that the joint trial of Mangaldas with the other two appellants was not illegal and that the sanction for the prosecution was valid. The court further held that the trial court had jurisdiction to try Mangaldas as the offence was committed partly in Bombay, where he dispatched the bag of turmeric powder, and partly in Nasik, where it was delivered.
Issues: 1. Whether the report of the Public Analyst was admissible in evidence without calling the Public Analyst as a witness. 2. Whether the joint trial of Mangaldas with the other two appellants was illegal. 3. Whether the sanction for the prosecution was valid. 4. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try Mangaldas.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 13 (5) of the Act makes the report of the Public Analyst admissible in evidence in any proceeding under the Act. The court is free to act on the certificate or not, as it thinks fit. 2. Section 537 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no judgment conviction or sentence can be held to be vitiated by reason of misjoinder of parties unless prejudice has resulted to the accused thereby. 3. The sanction for the prosecution was valid as it was obtained from the Officer of Health of the Municipality, as required by the Act. 4. Under S. 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it is uncertain in which of the local areas an offence was committed or where the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Mangaldas and Daryanomal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the High Court. The court also upheld the fine imposed on Kodumal by the High Court.
Judgement
MUDHOLKAR, J.: This appeal and Criminal Appeal No. 113/63 arise out of a joint trial of the appellant Mangaldas and the two appellants Daryanomal and Kodumal in Cri. A. 113 of 1963 for the contravention of S. 7 (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which they were convicted and sentenced under S. 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The appellants Mangaldas and Daryanomal were each sentenced under Section 16 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 while the other appellant was sentenced under sub-cl. (i) to undergo imprisonment until the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200. On appeal they were all acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay which allowed it and restored the sentences passed on Mangaldas and Daryanomal by the Judicial Magistrate but imposed only a fine of Rs.200 on Kodumal. They have come up to this Court by special leave.
2. The admitted facts are these. Mangaldas is a wholesale dealer, commission agent, exporter, supplier and manufacturer of various kinds of spices doing business at Bombay. Daryanomal is engaged in grocery business at Nasik while Kodumal is his servant. On November 7, 1960 Daryanomal purchased from Mangaldas a bag of haldi (turmeric powder) weighin 75 kg. which was despatched by the latter through a public carrier. It was received on behalf of Daryanomal at 11-45 a.m. on November 18, 1960 by Kodumal at the octroi post of Nasik Municipality. After he paid the octroi duty to the Nasik Municipality and took delivery of the bag the Food Inspector Burud purchased from him 12 oz. of turmeric powder contained in that bag for the purpose of analysis. The procedure in this regard which is laid down in S. 11 of the Act was followed by Burud. A portion of the turmeric powder was sent to the public Analyst at Poona whose report Ex. 16, shows that the turmeric powder was adulterated food within the meaning of S. 2 (1) of the Act. Thereupon Burud, after obtaining the sanction of the Officer of Health of the Municipality, filed a complaint against the appellants in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate for offences under S. 16 (1) (a) read with S. 7 (v) of the Act. At the trial Kodumal admitted that he had taken delivery of the bag at the octroi post and sold 12 oz. of turmeric powder to the Food Inspector and that he had also received a notice from him under S. 11 of the Act. It was contended at the trial on behalf of Daryanomal that actually no delivery had been taken but that point was not pressed before the High Court. While Mangaldas admitted that he had sold and despatched the bag containing turmeric powder he contended that what was sent was not turmeric powder used for human consumption but was "Bhandare" which is used for religious purposes or for applying to he forehead. This contention was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate as well as by the High Court but was not considered by the Additional Sessions Judge. It was sought to be challenged before us by Mr. Ganatra on his behalf but as the finding of the High Court on the point is upon a question of fact we did not permit him to challenge it.
3. We will take Mangaldas s case first. Mr. Ganatra had made an application on his behalf for raising a number of new points, including some alleged to raise constitutional questions. At the hearing, however, he did not seek to urge any question involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The new points which he sought to urge were.
(1) that the appellant was not questioned regarding the report of the Public Analyst;
(2) the joint trial of Mangaldas with the other two appellants was illegal; and
3. that the sanction was not valid.
4. As regards the first of these points his contention is that he had raised it before the High Court also though it has not referred to it in its judgment. The High Court has stated clearly t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
