1976 (9) TMI 186 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms conviction & sentence for food adulteration; no probation granted under Probation Act

Prem Ballab and Ors. Versus The State (Delhi Admn.)

The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants in a case where the evidence of Food Inspectors, without independent witnesses, was deemed ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of conviction based on the evidence of Food Inspectors without independent witnesses.2. Applicability of Section 16(1) proviso for reducing the sentence.3. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for the appellants.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Conviction Based on the Evidence of Food Inspectors Without Independent Witnesses:The appellants contended that their conviction was flawed as it was based solely on the testimony of Food Inspectors Bhanot and Bhatnagar, without any independent witnesses. The court acknowledged that while the prosecution did not produce independent witnesses, this alone was insufficient to reject the prosecution's case. The sample was taken in the presence of Keshav Dutt Sharma, who later turned hostile. Despite his refusal to support the prosecution, the court found his explanation for signing the panchnama dishonest. The court emphasized that the evidence of Bhanot and Bhatnagar, corroborated by the panchnama signed by Sharma, was sufficient for conviction. The court held that there is no legal requirement that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a Food Inspector, and the evidence presented was adequate to sustain the conviction.2. Applicability of Section 16(1) Proviso for Reducing the Sentence:The appellants argued that their offense fell under Section 2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which should allow for a lesser sentence under the proviso to Section 16(1). The court examined whether the offense fell under Clause (1) or Clause (j) of Section 2(i). The court clarified that the clauses of Section 2(i) are not mutually exclusive, and an article of food can be adulterated under multiple clauses. The linseed oil sold by the appellants contained artificial dye, prohibited under the Rules. The court held that the presence of artificial dye in linseed oil, where no colouring matter is permitted, falls under Clause (j) of Section 2(i). Consequently, the proviso to Section 16(1) did not apply, and the minimum sentence of six months imprisonment was upheld.3. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for the Appellants:The appellants sought the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to avoid imprisonment. The court referred to its earlier decision in Isher Das v. State, which allowed for the application of the Probation of Offenders Act in cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the court noted that the Act's aim is to eradicate food adulteration, a serious public health menace. Given the legislative intent to impose a minimum sentence for such offenses, the court advised caution in applying probation for offenders above 21 years of age. The court emphasized the need for social defense and the risks posed by adulterators, who engage in economic offenses driven by profit motives. The court also referred to the recent legislative amendment excluding the applicability of probation for offenses under the Act, reinforcing the trend against leniency. Consequently, the court denied the appellants' plea for probation and upheld the sentence.Conclusion:The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants, dismissing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the sufficiency of Food Inspectors' testimony, the inapplicability of the proviso to Section 16(1) for reducing the sentence, and the unsuitability of probation for offenders convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.