STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) versus PURAN MAL

STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) versus PURAN MAL

The prosecution failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Jal mirchi powder was adulterated as required by s.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 because the Public Analyst's certificate did not state the sample was worm- or insect-infested or that it was unfit for human consumption; therefore, acquittal must stand.

Parties
Appellant: State (Delhi Administration); Respondent: Puran Mal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment of Single Judge of Delhi High Court Dismissing Criminal Revision No. 268 of 1982, Which Arose From Acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Food Adulteration, Interpretation of 'insect Infested' and 'adulterated' Under S.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Criminal Law Food Safety Law Food Adulteration Interpretation of 'insect Infested' and 'adulterated' Under S.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State (Delhi Administration)

Appellant

Puran Mal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment of Single Judge of Delhi High Court Dismissing Criminal Revision No. 268 of 1982, Which Arose From Acquittal by Metropolitan Magistrate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of living worms in a food sample amounts to 'insect-infestation' or 'adulteration' under s.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved that the food article was unfit for human consumption or adulterated

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Jal mirchi powder was adulterated as required by s.2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 because the Public Analyst's certificate did not state the sample was worm- or insect-infested or that it was unfit for human consumption; therefore, acquittal must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Acquittal of respondent by the Magistrate and affirmed by the High Court is upheld.