MURLIDHAR SHYAMLAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(SC)-1996-1-148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 18,1996

MURLIDHAR SHYAMLAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K RANGANATHA REDDIAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [DISTINGUISHED]



Cited Judgements :-

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJPUT VS. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC and INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH [LAWS(DLH)-2005-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
R G BENDBAR VS. HEMANTKUMAR S PARIKH [LAWS(GJH)-1999-4-49] [REFERRED]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2011-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR MAHESWRI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
BARFI DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
SANAT KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-144] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHAGCHAND SADHUMAL [LAWS(GJH)-1998-9-26] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MANNANBHAI HASANALI [LAWS(GJH)-1998-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINKUMAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHI OIL & VANASPATI PVT.LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2011-6-46] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. BHAGCHAND SADHUMAL [LAWS(GJH)-1998-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH GARG VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-258] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)JUDGMENT
(2.)LEAVE granted.
Though notice was served on the State, none appeared and pursuant to another notice given to the State counsel, she has circulated a letter stating that she did not get any instructions from the State and that, therefore, she cannot proceed with the matter. We have heard the counsel for the appellants.

The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (for short, 'the Act) for adulteration of mustard oil. The offence had taken place on 1-2-1984. Consequently. if the offence is proved, the sentence would be of mandatory character. he was acquitted by the trial Court but on appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default, he was to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.)THE learned Magistrate considering Section 19 (2) read with Rule 12 A of the Food adulteration Rules. 1956 (for short, 'Rules') found that since the appellant was armed with a warranty as envisaged thereunder, he had not committed the offence of adulteration of food. Accordingly, he acquitted, the appellant. On a composite appeal filed in the High Court, the learned single Judge in Government Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1985 set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offense. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon Section 19 (2) and Rule 12-A of the Rules contended that on the appellant proving that he purchased article of food from a manufacturer or a dealer with a warranty as envisaged in Rule 12-A, he is absolved of the offence and the only remedy for the prosecution is to proceed against the manufacturer or dealer or distributor etc.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.