PYARALI K. TEJANI versus MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE AND OTHERS

PYARALI K. TEJANI versus MAHADEO RAMCHANDRA DANGE AND OTHERS

Contravention of sections 7 read with Rules 44(g) and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules is proven; supari is food under section 2(v); rule-making power in section 23 valid due to inbuilt guidelines, committee advice, and parliamentary oversight; strict liability applies to food offences; probation principle not apt for food adulteration offences; minimum statutory sentence must generally apply, and no constitutional violation or discrimination exists.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Pyarali K. Tejani; Respondent No. 1: Mahadeo Ram Chandra Dange; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2; Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 October 1973
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Final Disposition
Outcome
Petition and appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Legal Topics
Food Adulteration, Validity of Subordinate Legislation, Sentencing Policy, Probation of Offenders, Strict Liability Offences, Constitutionality of Statutory Restrictions
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Food Safety Law Food Adulteration Validity of Subordinate Legislation Sentencing Policy Probation of Offenders +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pyarali K. Tejani

Appellant/petitioner

Mahadeo Ram Chandra Dange

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 3

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 44(g) and 47 violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(f)/(g) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether supari is 'food' under section 2(v) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether section 23 rule-making power lacks adequate guidelines and is unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

Contravention of sections 7 read with Rules 44(g) and 47 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules is proven; supari is food under section 2(v); rule-making power in section 23 valid due to inbuilt guidelines, committee advice, and parliamentary oversight; strict liability applies to food offences; probation principle not apt for food adulteration offences; minimum statutory sentence must generally apply, and no constitutional violation or discrimination exists.

Court Disposition

Petition and appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Orders

  • Criminal appeal and writ petition dismissed.
  • Minimum statutory sentence of six months imprisonment and one thousand rupees fine stood confirmed.