Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
LASKARI RAM
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : January 24, 2000
Food Adulteration - Conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Burden of proof on vendor to show fall in standards not due to human agency - Minimum sentence for primary food offense
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling adulterated milk. The High Court reversed the acquittal by the Sessions Court and upheld the conviction and sentence of six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the burden of proof was on the vendor to show that the fall in standards of the milk was not due to human agency but natural causes. The Court also reduced the sentence to three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, considering the absence of any allegation of foreign articles or added water in the milk.
Issues: The issues included the authorization of the Food Inspector to launch the prosecution and the burden of proof on the vendor regarding the fall in standards of the primary food.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof was placed on the vendor to demonstrate that the fall in standards of the primary food was not due to human agency but natural causes. The Court also considered the absence of any foreign article or added water in the milk in reducing the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, and the sentence was reduced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 Though the Sessions Court acquitted him. the High Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction and sentence passed on him.
( 3 ) THE food article which Appellant has sold to the Food Inspector was milk. The public analyst after analysing the sample reported that it has fallen below standards prescribed for milk regarding nonfat contents and fat contents. One defence which Appellant adopted was that the milk was not properly stirred but that was not found favour with by the High Court. Here the condition raised by the learned Counsel is that the Food Inspector was not properly authorised to launch the prosecution. But that was not taken up at an early stage; and hence we are not disposed to countenance the said contention.
( 4 ) MILK being a primary food, learned Counsel contended that it is for the prosecution to prove that the fall in standards was due to human agency and not due to natural causes. The burden of proof has been cast on the vendor of the primary food to show that the fall in standards was not due to human agency but | on account of natural causes. Unfortunately, the Appellant has not adduced any evidence in the line.
( 5 ) THE minimum sentence which the Act provides for the offence when the food article is primary food, is imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. On the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to go beyond the minimum sentence particularly when there is no allegation that the milk contained any foreign article or even added water. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. If any amount of fine has been paid in excess, he can apply for refund.
( 6 ) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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
