Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
D.P. UNIYAL, J.
Garbha Shah - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Rev. No. 1069 of 1964
Decided On : 24-03-1966
ORDER
D.P. Uniyal, J. - This revision is directed against the conviction of the Applicant u/s 7 read with Section 6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 25, in default one month's R.I
2. The Applicant was found selling lemon-drops without a licence. It was said that Under Clause (h) of Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules there was complete bar to the sale of sweetmeats without obtaining a licence. It was admitted by the accused that he did sell lemon drops, but his contention was that he had a licence for biscuits and that lemon drops did not fall within the category of sweetmeats and hence did not require any licence. This contention was overruled by the courts below and he was convicted and sentenced as said above.
3. It seems to me that the present prosecution is wholly misconceived. The learned Sessions Judge sought to extend the scope of the word 'sweetmeats' by bringing within its term lemon drops, he observed that since lemon-drops contained sugar they came within the meaning of sweetmeats. In Webster's New International Dictionary the definition of "sweetmeat" is as follows:
Any food rich in sugar, as cake, candy, sweet pastry, etc. specifically candy or crystallised fruit.
Obviously lemon-drops, though sweet in taste, are not sugar-coated. They cannot, in my opinion, be included within the definition of sweetmeats as such.
It follows that the restriction placed by Rule 50 on the sale of sweetmeats without obtaining a licence can not apply to a case of sale of lemon-drops. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the Applicant cannot be sustained.
4. I accordingly allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant and acquit him. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him.
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
