Conviction for adulterated food sale upheld; statutory minimum sentence could not be reduced on equitable grounds.

Sale of adulterated curd under the Prevention of Food Adulteration law was upheld where concurrent findings and analyst reports established deficiency in milk fat and non-fat milk solids. The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules failed because the record showed compliance and no specific defect in sampling was proved. A plea for sentence reduction based on lapse of time and the shop owner's death was rejected because the statutory minimum sentence remained mandatory once the offence was proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for selling adulterated curd under the Prevention of Food Adulteration law was sustainable despite the challenge to the findings of fact and alleged non-compliance with the prescribed rules; (ii) Whether leniency in sentence could be granted on the ground of lapse of time and the death of the shop owner.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for selling adulterated curd under the Prevention of Food Adulteration law was sustainable despite the challenge to the findings of fact and alleged non-compliance with the prescribed rules.

Analysis: The courts below had concurrently found that the appellant sold curd which was adulterated, and the public analyst as well as the Central Food Laboratory certificate showed deficiency in milk fat and non-fat milk solids. The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was rejected because the record showed compliance and no specific defect was demonstrated. The absence of a recital in the certificate that the sample was intact did not establish non-compliance, since no such requirement was shown to exist.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether leniency in sentence could be granted on the ground of lapse of time and the death of the shop owner.

Analysis: The request for leniency was declined because, once the offence stood proved, the statutory minimum sentence had to be imposed. The passage of time and the subsequent death of the shop owner did not furnish a basis to reduce the sentence below the prescribed minimum.

Conclusion: No leniency in sentence was granted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence establishes sale of adulterated food and no legal non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure is shown, the conviction must stand, and the statutory minimum sentence cannot be reduced on equitable grounds.

---