Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., R.S. PATHAK, J.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Appellant
Versus
M/s New Kwality Sweet House and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1979, D/- 5-12-1984.
Advocate appeared
Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate, for Appellant.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7, 16 - Food Inspector - Adulterated Article - Required Quantity - A Food Inspector purchased a sample of suji from respondent-accused, which was found to contain excessive moisture and ash - Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitted accused by his judgment on ground that Food Inspector did not send required quantity of adulterated article to Public Analyst for analysis - Rules required Food Inspector to send 250 gms of suji for analysis whereas he sent only 200 gm - Whether a conviction could be recorded under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if a quantity smaller than that required by Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for purpose of analysis to Public Analyst – Held, Fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by Rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food so long as quantity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable Analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests – Court do not, however, propose to interfere with order of acquittal since this appeal was filed not so much for purpose of securing conviction of accused but for purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court That - Question was decided long back in State of Kerala. v. Alaserry Mohammed - Therefore though view taken by courts below is unsupportable court do not propose to interfere with ultimate order passed by them - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
JUDGMENT:- As long back as on August 1, 1975 a Food Inspector purchased a sample of suji (Semolina) from the respondent- accused, which was found to contain excessive moisture and ash The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitted the accused by his judgment dated july 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity of the adulterated article to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Rules required the Food Inspector to send 250 gms. of suji for analysis whereas he sent only 200 gm. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi summarily.
2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is clearly wrong in the view to taken by him, from which it must follow that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision application summarily. The fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in the conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food so long as the quantity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests. We do not, however, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since this appeal was filed not so much for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether a conviction could be recorded under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst. That question was decided long back in State of Kerala. v. Alaserry Mohammed, (1978) 2 SCR 820. Therefore though the view taken by the courts below is unsupportable we do not propose to interfere with the ultimate order passed by them.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1985 SC 329
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
