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>High Court Upholds Food Adulteration Penalties</h1> <h3>Murlidhar Meghraj Loya Etc Versus State Of Maharashtra Etc.</h3> Murlidhar Meghraj Loya Etc Versus State Of Maharashtra Etc. - 1976 AIR 1929, 1977 SCR (1) 1, 1976) 3 SCC 684 Issues Involved:1. Judicial discretion in sentencing under the Food Adulteration law.2. Interpretation of 'adulteration' under s.2(i)(a) and s.2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.3. Applicability of the proviso to s.16(1) for reducing the minimum sentence.4. The practice of plea bargaining in criminal cases.5. Consideration of mitigating circumstances in sentencing.Summary:1. Judicial Discretion in Sentencing:The judgment discusses the inflexible sentencing minima prescribed by Parliament in the Food Adulteration law, which limits judicial discretion even when prosecution and accused consent to a more lenient course. The appellants were initially sentenced to a fine of Rs. 250 by the trial Magistrate, but the High Court enhanced the sentence to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, adhering to the mandatory minimum penalties under s.16(1) of the Act.2. Interpretation of 'Adulteration':The core issue was whether the adulteration of khurasani oil with 30% groundnut oil fell under s.2(i)(a) or s.2(i)(1) of the Act. The Court held that s.2(i)(a) has a wide scope and includes any article not of the nature, substance, or quality it purports to be. The Court rejected the argument that the case should fall under s.2(i)(1), which would allow for a more lenient sentence under the proviso to s.16(1).3. Applicability of Proviso to s.16(1):The Court examined whether the proviso to s.16(1), which allows for a reduced sentence for certain types of adulteration, could be applied. It concluded that the proviso applies only if the adulteration falls under s.2(i)(1) or s.2(ix)(k). Since the case was found to be under s.2(i)(a), the proviso was not applicable, and the minimum sentence prescribed by s.16(1) had to be imposed.4. Plea Bargaining:The judgment touches upon the practice of plea bargaining, noting that the appellants might have pleaded guilty based on an informal understanding of receiving a light sentence. The Court highlighted that such practices, while prevalent in some jurisdictions, are not sanctioned in India, especially for serious economic crimes and food offences.5. Mitigating Circumstances:The Court acknowledged the appellants' argument that the mixing of oils was possibly unintentional and that groundnut oil is more expensive than khurasani oil, negating a profit motive. However, it emphasized that the law mandates an absolute liability for food adulteration, and mitigating circumstances cannot override the statutory minimum sentence. The Court suggested that the executive could consider remission of the sentence in light of the circumstances and the appellants' efforts to address the issue of adulteration in khurasani oil.The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's conviction and sentence.
TaxTMI 