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

1966 Supreme(All) 382

D. P. UNIYAL
Garbha Shah – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


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 pas

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top