.. OF DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. NEW KWALITY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-1985-2-284-286
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Held
The fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rule• G is sent for analysis car not 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 Ar1alyst to make a satisfactory analysis acco .. ding to accepted tests. Therefore, a conviction could be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act. [285F-(, H State of Kera/a V. Aluserr)' Mohammed[l978] 2 S.C.R. 820 followed.
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
.. OF DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. c NEW KWALITY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.
December 5, 1984
D Preventlon of Food Adultration Act section 7 read with section 16, scope of Whether the conviction can b~ recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the POFA act, even after, a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to he sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public analyst.
E Prevetltion Of Food Adulteration Rules requires the Food Inspector to send 250 gms of suji (semolina) for analysis. On August I, 1975 a Food Ins· pector purchased a sample of 200 gms of suji from the respondent-accused and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. Though the report indicated that 1he sample was found to contain excessive moisture and ash, the Metro~ politan Magistrate, Delhi acquitted the accused by his juogment dated July 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity F . of the adulterated article for analysis. The·High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation. Hence the appeal by special leave. t, Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
M.C.D. v. l:WALITY SWEET (Cha11drachud, C.J.) 285
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A No. 114 of 1979
From the Judgment and order dated the 28th March 1978 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 399/78. B Randhir Jain Appellant.
Judgment
the Order of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. As long back as on August 1, 1975 a Food c Inspector purchased a sample of suji (Semolina) from the respon- _, dent 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 D the Food Inspector to send 250 gms. of suji for analysis, whereas he sent only 200 gms. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi summarily. E The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is clearly wrong in the view 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 t of a person accused of selling adulterated food, so long as the quan· tity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Analyst to make a F
satisfactory analysis according to aceepted tests. We do not, how- ever, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since, this appeal was filed not so much for the purpose of securing the convic- tion of the accused but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether a conviction could be G recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if, a quantity smaller than that requir- ed by the Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst. That question was decided long '_,, ;·,
p. 286
A back in State of Kera/a v. Alaserry Mohammed.(1) Therefore, though the view taken by the courts below is unsupportable, we do not propose to interfere with the ultimate order passed by them.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. R. Appeal dismissed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0