DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus VIDYA GUPTA

DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus VIDYA GUPTA

Storing adulterated food for manufacture of items intended for sale is an offence under s.7, regardless of whether the food itself is offered for sale. Director, CFL's certificate is final and conclusive evidence for deciding adulteration; variation between analyst reports is legally irrelevant.

Parties
Appellant: Delhi Administration; Respondent: Vidya Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction restored; sentence confined to period already undergone.
Legal Topics
Food Adulteration, Evidentiary Value of Analyst Reports, Interpretation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
Criminal Law Food Safety Food Adulteration Evidentiary Value of Analyst Reports Interpretation of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Administration

Appellant

Vidya Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether storing adulterated ghee not meant for direct sale constitutes an offence under s.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether variation between Public Analyst and Director, Central Food Laboratory reports affects the representativeness of sample and conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Storing adulterated food for manufacture of items intended for sale is an offence under s.7, regardless of whether the food itself is offered for sale. Director, CFL's certificate is final and conclusive evidence for deciding adulteration; variation between analyst reports is legally irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal set aside; conviction restored; sentence confined to period already undergone.

Orders

  • Acquittal of respondent set aside
  • Respondent convicted for offence under s.2(ia)(a)(c)&(m) punishable under s.16(1)(a) r/w s.7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954