Narendra Kumar Vs. State of M.P.

Narendra Kumar vs State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 23, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510581

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510581
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: W.A. Shah, J.
Decided On: Nov 23, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Revision No. 605 of 1999
Subject: Food Adulteration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055. Article 141; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Ful...

Key legal issue: Food Adulteration
Acts & sections: Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Rule 50; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narendra Kumar

Advocate Harish Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate Devendra Singh, Panel Lawyer

Legal References

Acts: Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Rule 50; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 16(1)
Cases Referred: Prakash Chand v. State of M.P.
Reported In: 2006FAJ121

Excerpt

.....the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - 6. under the circumstances the charge of want of license being independent as adulteration charge has failed against the applicant it does not go away simply on the ground that for selling any adulterated food material the law does not prescribe any license......from prakash chand v. state of m.p. 1993(1) p.f.a. cases 28 :but there is no standard prescribed for any extracted edible oil from any food stuff.5. for the above reasons the report of the director. central food laboratory ex. p/20 deserves to be rejected and the courts below acted upon it against law. hence the conviction of the applicant regarding adulteration is not sustainable.6. under the circumstances the charge of want of license being independent as adulteration charge has failed against the applicant it does not go away simply on the ground that for selling any adulterated food material the law does not prescribe any license. on the basis of panchnama ex. p/11 the concurrent findings of the courts below that the applicant stored food stuffs for sale without license are not against law or fact.7. in the result this revision is partly allowed and the conviction of the applicant under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the act is set aside and he is acquitted thereof, however, his conviction under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the act is retained. yet looking to all the circumstances of the case such as no record of any previous conviction against the applicant and the date of offence being 17-3-1994 the sentence thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of rs. 500/- as imposed by courts below. amount of fine if paid as regards other head be refunded. the applicant is on bail. his bail is discharged.

Full Judgment

ORDER

W.A. Shah, J.

1. On 17-3-1994 the Food Inspector, R.C. Gupta, at M. G. Road, Sonkutch inspected the shop of the accused/applicant and on its inspection found that the applicant was offering for sale number of items of sweets and other food. He was yet not having any license issued under Rule 50 of the M.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Food Inspector also suspected that the BARFI which was being offered there for sale was adulterated, therefore, he after following requisite formalities also obtained sample thereof for food analysis. It was thereafter as per procedure prescribed put to analysis. The analysis revealed it to be adulterated. With due sanction the applicant was accordingly prosecuted for adulteration and for want of license. He pleaded not guilty. The trial ended in conviction. He was thus sentenced under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'Act' hereafter) to six months RI and fine Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act to three months RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. The applicant took the matter to the Court of Sessions in appeal. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it and upheld the conviction and sentences. Hence the applicant has come up in this revision before the High Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant made submissions in support of the revision application. The learned Panel Lawyer made counter submission.

3. Having heard the arguments I have gone through the record. After the presentation of the complaint Certificate from Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ex. P/20 has been obtained. It says that sample showed presence of non permitted coaltar colour (Green S) and B. R. Reading of extracted fat at 40 C which was less than the minimum prescribed limit as laid down in item No. 11.02.21 of PFA Rules. The sample was thus opined to the adulterated. However, I find that the certificate does not mention the chemical class and colour index of the allegedly unpermitted colour found in the sample. Thus the report is deficient in this respect. It is, therefore, found to be infirm and in this connection reference may be made to the following observation from Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. State of M.P. 1992(1) P.F.A. Cases 137:

It was necessary for the Public Analyst to disclose the chemical class and colour index of the allegedly unpermitted colour found in the sample.

4. So far as the opinion of the Director in the above report as to B. R. Reading is concerned that is also worthless because there is no standard prescribed for any extracted edible oil from any food stuff. In this respect also a reference may be made to the following observation from Prakash Chand v. State of M.P. 1993(1) P.F.A. Cases 28 :

But there is no standard prescribed for any extracted edible oil from any food stuff.

5. For the above reasons the report of the Director. Central Food Laboratory Ex. P/20 deserves to be rejected and the Courts below acted upon it against law. Hence the conviction of the applicant regarding adulteration is not sustainable.

6. Under the circumstances the charge of want of license being independent as adulteration charge has failed against the applicant it does not go away simply on the ground that for selling any adulterated food material the law does not prescribe any license. On the basis of Panchnama Ex. P/11 the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant stored food stuffs for sale without license are not against law or fact.

7. In the result this revision is partly allowed and the conviction of the applicant under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act is set aside and he is acquitted thereof, however, his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is retained. Yet looking to all the circumstances of the case such as no record of any previous conviction against the applicant and the date of offence being 17-3-1994 the sentence thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/- as imposed by Courts below. Amount of fine if paid as regards other head be refunded. The applicant is on bail. His bail is discharged.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Narendra Kumar vs State of M.P. Same Subject Food Adulteration Same Judge W.A. Shah, J. Acts & Sections Madhya Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Rule 5...

Food Adulteration