TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (10) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proved in the case and found that the confectionary drops sold by the accused to the Food Inspector by way of sample contained coal tar dye. The High Court however, acquitted the respondents only on the ground that under Rule 22 as it stood before the amendment required that the minimum quantity of 500 gms. of the sample seized should be sent for analysis. This rule was subsequently amended by Rule 22B. In fact as pointed by this Court in the case of State of Kerala etc. etc. v. Alassary Mohammed, etc. etc. amendment by Rule 22B was not really an amendment in the strict sense of the term but merely a clarification of what was really intended by the original Rule 22. The High Court however, on the basis of the decision of this Court in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of acquittal particularly when the case was launched against the respondents as far back as 1971. Secondly it was contended that even though the previous decision of this Court was over-ruled by this Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Alassary Mohammed (supra), yet the previous decision was the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and, therefore, the judgment of the High Court was correct. As regards the first point we think that there is absolutely no substance in it. The later decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Alassary Mohammed (supra) has clearly decided the point of law against the view taken by the High Court and as a logical consequence thereof the acquittal of the respondents was wrong ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interested more in the correct enunciation of the law than in seeing that the respondents in these appeals are convicted. They were not anxious to prose cute these matters to obtain ultimate conviction of the respondents. A large number of the other appeals are by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for whom the Attorney General appeared assisted by Mr. B.P. Maheshwari. Although a categorical stand was not taken on behalf of the appellants in these appeals as the one taken in the Kerala cases, evefotutlly, the learned Attorney General did not seriously object to the course indicated by us. In the few Bombay appeals M/s. V.S. Desai and M. N. Shroff showed their anxiety for obtaining ultimate convictions of the offenders, but we do not find su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither of the two grounds are applicable to the present case. It is not a test case(sic) of cases had already been decided in accord-(sic) given by this Court in Alassary Moham-(sic). Secondly the appellant has vehemently chal-(sic) of the respondents and urged before us that the (sic) respondents should be set aside and the respondents (sic) convicted. Thus the second point raised by counsel for (sic) appellant also does not appear to be tenable. Lastly it was argued that under Article 141 since the earlier ease decided by this Court in Pamanani's case (supra) held the field, it must be held that it was the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. It is well settled that whenever a previous decision is over-rul....