Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
JAGDISH PRASAD AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Nanavati, J.
The appellant is challenging his conviction under
Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1955. Both the courts have concurrently
found that it was the appellant who had sold curd which was
found to be adulterated. The certificate issued by the
Public Analyst and subsequently by the Central Food
Laboratory show that the curd was deficient in respect of
milk fat and milk solids of non fat. We see no reason to
differ from the findings recorded by both the courts below
and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant has to be
confirmed.
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules were not complied with in this case. This
contention has been dealt with by the High Court and it has
found that they were complied with. Learned counsel was not
able to point out how Rule 4(3) or Rule 4(4) have not been
complied with in this case. His submission that it is not
mentioned in the certificate that the sample was intact and
therefore there was non-compliance does not deserve any
consideration because there is no requirement that in the
Certificate of Analysis itself it should be stated that the
sample when received by the Central Food Laboratory was
found intact.
It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the
offence had taken place in 1979 and the appellant’s father,
who was the owner of the shop has now died and, therefore,
some leniency should be shown to him. We cannot accept this
submission because once the offence is held proved, the
minimum sentence has to be imposed.
As we found no substance in this appeal, it is
dismissed. The appellant is directed to surrender to custody
to serve out the remaining sentence.