1964 (2) TMI 88 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Selling Adulterated Ghee

State Of Uttar Pradesh Versus Kartar Singh

The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's conviction for selling adulterated ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Court disagreed with ... - Issues Involved:1. Adulteration of ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Validity of the standards prescribed under the Act.3. Application of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding discriminatory classification.4. Validity of the ruling by the Allahabad High Court in State v. Malik Ram.5. Sentencing and reduction of punishment.Detailed Analysis:1. Adulteration of Ghee:The respondent was prosecuted for selling adulterated ghee, as determined by the Food Inspector and confirmed by the Public Analyst and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The ghee had a Reichert Value of 22.5 and 21.7, respectively, against the prescribed minimum of 28 for Uttar Pradesh. The respondent admitted selling the ghee but denied it was adulterated, claiming it was sourced from Jodhpur where the minimum Reichert value is 21. Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge rejected this defense, and the respondent was convicted and sentenced.2. Validity of Standards:The High Court acquitted the respondent, holding that the basis for the prescribed Reichert values was not rational, and any vendor satisfying the minimum standards for any area should be acquitted. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the standards were set by a committee of experts and should not be invalidated without scientific evidence proving their unreasonableness or discriminatory nature. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the validity of the rules.3. Application of Article 14:The Supreme Court addressed the High Court's invocation of Article 14, which was implied but not explicitly mentioned. The Court held that the classification of zones and prescription of standards were based on extensive surveys and scientific analysis. The respondent failed to provide evidence to challenge the rationality of these classifications. The Court emphasized that elevation alone is not the sole factor in determining Reichert values; other factors like breed, feed, and climatic conditions are also crucial.4. Validity of State v. Malik Ram:The Supreme Court criticized the Allahabad High Court's decision in State v. Malik Ram, which applied the Himachal Pradesh standard to hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh without sufficient evidence. The Court held that such judicial legislation was inappropriate and that the rules should be adhered to as framed. The decision in Malik Ram was based on an incorrect assumption that elevation was the primary factor for Reichert values, which the Supreme Court found to be an oversimplification.5. Sentencing and Reduction of Punishment:The Supreme Court restored the respondent's conviction but considered the time already served. The respondent had undergone 18 days of imprisonment out of the one-month sentence modified by the Sessions Judge. Given that the respondent had been on bail since the admission of his Revision Petition, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed by the Magistrate remained unchanged.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and restored the respondent's conviction. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine imposed stood. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to scientifically established standards and the proper burden of proof in challenging such standards.