Skip to content


Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. New Kwality Sweet House and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 114 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1985SC329; 1985CriLJ663; 1984(2)SCALE960; (1985)1SCC195; [1985]2SCR284; 1985(17)LC359(SC)
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 16
AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Delhi
RespondentNew Kwality Sweet House and ors.
Advocates: Randhir Jain, Adv
Cases ReferredState of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed
Excerpt:
.....sections 420, 467, 468 & 471: cheating and forgery - allotment of developed land in lieu of land acquired for housing scheme floated by housing board - complaint filed by members of society alleging that 20 bighas of land which was agreed to be sold to society was given to third person in collusion with special officer of housing board thereby defrauding society respondents/accused were concerned only with 13 bighas of land and not remaining 20 bighas. neither society nor its members had made any claim in respect of 13 bighas of land - prima facie no offence made out against respondents held, order quashing fir against them is proper. - 2. the learned metropolitan magistrate is clearly wrong in the view taken by him, from which it must follow that the high court was not..........inspector to send 250 gms, of suji for analysis, whereas he sent only 200 gm. the high court of delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the municipal corporation of delhi summarily.2. the learned metropolitan magistrate is clearly wrong in the view taken by him, from which it must follow that the high court was not justified in dismissing the revision application summarily. the tact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in the conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food so long as the quantity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests. we do not however, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since, this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. As long back as on August 1, 1975 a Food Inspector purchased a sample of suji (Semolina) from the respondent accused, which was found to contain excessive moisture and ash. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, acquitted the accused by his judgment dated July 19, 1977 on the ground that the Food Inspector did not send the required quantity of the adulterated article to the Public Analyst for analysis The Rules required the Food Inspector to send 250 gms, of suji for analysis, whereas he sent only 200 gm. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision application filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi summarily.

2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is clearly wrong in the view taken by him, from which it must follow that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the revision application summarily. The tact that a lesser quantity than that prescribed by the Rules is sent for analysis cannot constitute an impediment in the conviction of a person accused of selling adulterated food so long as the quantity sent for analysis is sufficient to enable the Analyst to make a satisfactory analysis according to accepted tests. We do not however, propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since, this appeal was filed not so much for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether a conviction could be recorded under section read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even if a quantity smaller than that required by the Rules to be sent for analysis is sent for the purpose of analysis to the Public Analyst That question was decided long back in State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed : 1978CriLJ925 . Therefore, though the view taken by the courts below' is unsupportable, we do not propose to interfere with the ultimate order passed by them.

3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //