TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns acquittal, convicts for selling adulterated confectionary drops.</h1> <h3>RAMDAS BHIKAJI CHAUDHARI Versus SADANAND</h3> The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's acquittal of the respondents for selling confectionary drops containing coal tar dye due to the quantity of ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, specifically regarding the minimum quantity of sample required for analysis, and the legal consequences of the quantity falling below the prescribed limit.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 22 and acquittal based on quantity of sample sent for analysisThe respondents were initially convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for selling confectionary drops containing coal tar dye. The High Court, however, acquitted them based on the quantity of the sample sent for analysis being below the required 500 gms as per Rule 22. The High Court's decision was influenced by a previous ruling which was later overruled by a larger bench, clarifying that Rule 22 was directory and not mandatory. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal based on the quantity of the sample was legally erroneous in light of the latest decision.Issue 2: Legal consequences of overruled decision and imposition of sentenceThe respondents argued that the previous decision should be upheld under Article 141 of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court clarified that when a previous decision is overruled, it no longer holds legal weight. The Court emphasized that the judgment of the High Court was vitiated by a clear error of law and could not be sustained. The Court then considered the appropriate sentence, taking into account the time elapsed since the initial prosecution. Despite one respondent having a previous conviction, the Court decided not to consider it in the sentencing and convicted the respondents under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, imposing a fine of &8377; 2,000 each, with a default sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's acquittal of the respondents, emphasizing the legal error in the interpretation of Rule 22. The Court imposed a fine on the respondents under the relevant section of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, considering the circumstances and time elapsed since the initial prosecution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
