TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a joint trial of the vendor, distributor and manufacturer for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was illegal; (ii) Whether the charge against the appellant could be sustained in the special facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether a joint trial of the vendor, distributor and manufacturer for offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was illegal.
Analysis: The statutory scheme did not exclude the ordinary provisions governing joinder of accused and charges. A joint trial under the criminal procedure law was an enabling, not mandatory, course. The activities of manufacturer, distributor and vendor could form part of the same transaction where the allegations showed connecting links, including an anterior sale leading to the later sale and a common object that the article should reach the consumer as food. The absence of mens rea did not prevent such joinder, because the offence was one of strict liability and the relevant link was the common design in relation to the adulterated article.
Conclusion: A joint trial was not illegal in law, though separate trial could be ordered where fairness so required.
Issue (ii): Whether the charge against the appellant could be sustained in the special facts of the case.
Analysis: Although the joint trial was legally permissible, the complaint and charge did not clearly allege that the ghee was adulterated when sold by the appellant to the vendor. By the time the matter reached the Court, the transaction was old and the appellant's defence would be prejudiced by the delay and by the difficulty of meeting the allegation after many years. In these circumstances, the interests of justice favoured quashing the stale charge rather than requiring the appellant to face it after the long lapse of time.
Conclusion: The charge against the appellant was quashed and the appellant was discharged.
Final Conclusion: The legal position on joint trial under the Act was affirmed, but relief was granted on the peculiar facts because continuation of the prosecution would unfairly prejudice the appellant's defence.
Ratio Decidendi: A joint trial of persons dealing with the same adulterated food at different stages is not per se illegal if the allegations disclose connecting links amounting to the same transaction, but even a legally permissible charge may be quashed where the delay and factual deficiency would unfairly prejudice the defence.
TaxTMI 
