2004 (4) TMI 598 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds conviction for selling adulterated food, stresses food safety laws

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant for selling adulterated food, emphasizing the importance of adhering to food safety ... - Issues Involved:1. Adulteration of food sample2. Application of amended rules during pending appeal3. Validity and retrospective application of ex post facto laws4. Sentence modification based on long pendency and technical violationsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adulteration of Food Sample:The appellant was charged under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated hard boiled sugar confectionary containing mineral oil, which was considered an unwholesome ingredient and had an unpleasant smell and taste. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, which was later reduced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The High Court upheld this decision.2. Application of Amended Rules During Pending Appeal:During the pendency of the appeal, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were amended by a notification dated April 8, 1988, permitting the presence of mineral oil up to 0.2% by weight if it was of food grade and used as a lubricant. The appellant argued that the courts below erred by not considering the amended rules, which should be applied retrospectively to his case. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the amendment did not unconditionally permit mineral oil but allowed it under specific conditions, which were not met in this case.3. Validity and Retrospective Application of Ex Post Facto Laws:The appellant relied on the principle that any law mollifying the rigour of criminal law must be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Rattan Lal vs. State of Punjab, which established that an ex post facto law mollifying the rigour of criminal law could be valid and retrospective. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the amended rules did not unconditionally permit the presence of mineral oil and required specific conditions to be met, which were not proven in the appellant's case. The Court concluded that the amended rules could not be applied retrospectively to benefit the appellant.4. Sentence Modification Based on Long Pendency and Technical Violations:The appellant cited several judgments where lesser sentences were imposed due to long pendency and technical violations. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prescribed a minimum sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence charged. The Court highlighted the importance of strict adherence to the Act and the Rules to safeguard consumer interests and found no reason to interfere with the minimum sentence imposed. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to food safety laws and rejecting the retrospective application of the amended rules in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the minimum sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment was affirmed.