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>Conviction & Sentence Overturned Due to Legal Flaws</h1> <h3>Maya Prakash Versus State Of U.P. And Anr.</h3> Maya Prakash Versus State Of U.P. And Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Imperfect sanction for prosecution under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Conviction based on outdated standard of Vitamin 'A' content in Vanaspati Ghee.Analysis:Issue 1: Imperfect Sanction for ProsecutionThe revision petition challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, based on imperfect sanction for prosecution. The Prescribed Authority is required to apply its mind and issue a sanction for prosecution after satisfying that a prima facie case exists. The consent order must demonstrate the application of mind to avoid vexatious prosecution. In this case, the sanction order was found to be defective as it was a printed form with filled blanks, lacking specifics on documents considered and reasons for prosecution. The absence of a speaking order indicating the necessity of prosecution in the public interest rendered the sanction invalid, as per legal precedents. The failure to comply with the legal requirements of Section 20 of the Act vitiated the entire trial, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.Issue 2: Outdated Standard of Vitamin 'A' ContentThe petitioner's second contention revolved around the outdated standard of Vitamin 'A' content in Vanaspati Ghee. The sample taken from the petitioner was deemed adulterated based on the Analyst report, which indicated a deficiency in Vitamin 'A' content. However, a subsequent amendment had revised the standard requirement for Vitamin 'A' content in Vanaspati Ghee. The amended standard only required a positive test for Vitamin 'A' without specifying a particular quantity. The petitioner argued that the amendment should have retrospective effect as it was a beneficial legislation. The petitioner should benefit from the revised standard, which did not specify a minimum quantity of Vitamin 'A' required per gram at the time of testing. The courts below erred in not extending this benefit to the petitioner, leading to the allowance of the revision petition and setting aside of the conviction and sentence.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the imperfect sanction for prosecution and the application of outdated standards in determining the adulteration of Vanaspati Ghee, resulting in the favorable outcome for the petitioner in the revision petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
