SHARIF AHMED versus STATE OF U.P.

SHARIF AHMED versus STATE OF U.P.

Non-mention in the Public Analyst's report that the colour mixed with powdered chillies was injurious does not prove that the adulterant is non-injurious; prohibition exists because the substance is considered harmful, and reduction of sentence under a misconception by the High Court does not justify further reduction by the Supreme Court.

Parties
Petitioner: Sharif Alimed; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1979
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Supreme Court Dismissal of SLP
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Prevention of Food Adulteration, Sentencing, Prohibition of Adulterants
Criminal Law Food Safety Law Prevention of Food Adulteration Sentencing Prohibition of Adulterants

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sharif Alimed

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Supreme Court Dismissal of SLP

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether absence of mention in Analyst's report that adulterant is injurious to human life amounts to proof of it being non-injurious
  2. 2 Whether sentence should be further reduced based on purported innocence of adulterant

Ratio Decidendi

Non-mention in the Public Analyst's report that the colour mixed with powdered chillies was injurious does not prove that the adulterant is non-injurious; prohibition exists because the substance is considered harmful, and reduction of sentence under a misconception by the High Court does not justify further reduction by the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.