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 the prosecution was vitiated for want of a valid sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; (ii) Whether the amended standard relating to Vitamin A in Vanaspati Ghee applied so as to exclude the petitioner's conviction.
Issue (i): Whether the prosecution was vitiated for want of a valid sanction under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Analysis: A written consent under Section 20 is a condition precedent for launching prosecution under Section 7, and the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts and documents before granting consent. A printed proforma with blanks filled in, without disclosure of the materials considered or reasons for sanction, does not show such application of mind and cannot be treated as a valid speaking order. On the record, the consent order did not indicate the papers considered and reflected non-application of mind.
Conclusion: The sanction was invalid and the prosecution was vitiated; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the amended standard relating to Vitamin A in Vanaspati Ghee applied so as to exclude the petitioner's conviction.
Analysis: The earlier standard required a minimum prescribed content of synthetic Vitamin A, while the later amendment substituted the requirement with a positive test for Vitamin A. The substituted standard was treated as beneficial and capable of applying to pending matters. Since the analyst's report showed presence of Vitamin A and the sample did not fail the revised standard, the basis for treating the article as adulterated no longer survived.
Conclusion: The amended standard applied and the conviction could not be sustained on this basis; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the revision succeeded because the prosecution was unsustainable for want of valid sanction and the revised food standard removed the foundation of guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for food-adulteration prosecution must disclose conscious application of mind to the relevant materials, and a substituted beneficial standard governing the article may apply to pending proceedings so as to defeat a conviction founded on the superseded standard.
TaxTMI 
