MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus NEW KWALITY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.
Sending a lesser quantity than prescribed by the Rules for analysis is not an impediment to conviction if the quantity allows for satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Municipal Corporation of Delhi; Respondent: New Kwality Sweet House & Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment and Order Dated 28th March 1978 in Criminal Misc. No. 399/78
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Prevention of Food Adulteration, Standards for Sample Analysis, Conviction on Insufficient Sample Quantity
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Appellant
New Kwality Sweet House & Ors.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Delhi High Court Judgment and Order Dated 28th March 1978 in Criminal Misc. No. 399/78
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conviction can be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when a quantity smaller than required by the Rules is sent for analysis
Ratio Decidendi
Sending a lesser quantity than prescribed by the Rules for analysis is not an impediment to conviction if the quantity allows for satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No interference with order of acquittal; appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
59 paragraphs
A
284
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
..
v.
NEW KWALITY SWEET HOUSE & ORS.
December 5, 1984
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND R.S. PATHAK, J.)
Preventlon of Food Adultration Act section 7 read with section 16, scope of Whether the conviction can b~ recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the POFA act, even after, a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to he sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public analyst.
Prevetltion Of Food Adulteration Rules requires
the Food Inspector to send 250 gms of suji (semolina) for analysis. On August I, 1975 a Food Ins· pector purchased a sample of 200 gms of suji from the respondent-accused and sent the same to the Public Analyst for analysis. Though the report indicated that 1 he sample was found to contain excessive moisture and ash, the Metro~ politan Magistrate, Delhi acquitted the accused by his juogment dated July 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity . of the adulterated article for analysis. The·High Court of Delhi dismissed
the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation.
Hence the appeal by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: The fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rule• in the conviction of a is sent for analysis car not constitute an impediment person accused of selling adulterated food, so long as the quantity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Ar1alyst to make a satisfactory analysis acco .. ding to accepted tests. Therefore, a conviction could be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act.
[285F-(,
State of Kera/a V. Aluserr)' Mohammed[l978] 2 S.C.R. 820 followed.
t,
..
M.C.D. v. l:WALITY SWEET (Cha11drachud, C.J.)
285
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
A
No. 114 of 1979
From the Judgment and order dated the 28th March 1978 of
the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 399/78.
Randhir Jain Appellant.
the Order of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. As long back as on August 1, 1975 a Food Inspector purchased a sample of suji (Semolina) from the respon dent accused, which was found to contain excessive moisture and ash. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitted the accused by his judgment dated July 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity of the adulterated article to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Rules required the the Food Inspector to send 250 gms. of suji for analysis, whereas he sent only 200 gms. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision the Municipal Corporation of Delhi application filed summarily.
by
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is clearly wrong in the view taken by him, from which it must follow that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision application summarily. The fact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in the conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food, so long as the quan· tity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to aceepted tests. We do not, how ever, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since, this appeal was filed not so much for the purpose of securing the convic tion of the accused but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether a conviction could be recorded under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if, a quantity smaller than that requir ed by the Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst. That question was decided long
'_,,
;·,
B
c
D
E
F
G
_,
t
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985) 2 S.C.R.
back in State of Kera/a v. Alaserry Mohammed.(1) Therefore, though the view taken by the courts below is unsupportable, we do not propose to interfere with the ultimate order passed by them.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
286
A
B
S. R.
Appeal dismissed.
..
(1978) 2 8.C.R, 820