Skip to content


Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Baboo Ram Shyam Sunder and ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Food Adulteration
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeals Nos. 500 and 497 of 1978
Judge
Reported in(1982)2SCC147
ActsPrevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 7(1), 16
AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Delhi;municipal Corporation of Delhi
RespondentBaboo Ram Shyam Sunder and ors ;ganesh Dass and ors
Excerpt:
.....of violation of rule 22 of prevention of food adulteration rules — but in view of supreme court's decision in alasserry mohammed case holding rule 22 to be directory, respondents deserve to be convicted -- as the order of acquittal passed by the magistrate was wrong in law, we set aside the same and convict respondent 1 (firm known as m/s baboo ram shyam sunder) and respondent 2 (baboo ram) under section 7 read with section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. we also impose a fine of rs 3000 on respondent 1 and one of rs 2000 on respondent 2. 3. acquittal of respondent 3 (shyam sunder) is maintained. - 5000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi and also imposed a fine of rs......was wrong in law, we set aside the same and convict respondent 1 (firm known as m/s baboo ram shyam sunder) and respondent 2 (baboo ram) under section 7 read with section 16 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. as regards the sentence, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and of the fact that the law was changed by this court long after the acquittal of the respondent, we release respondent 2 on probation for a period of two years on execution of a bond of rs 5000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the chief metropolitan magistrate, delhi. we also impose a fine of rs 3000 on respondent 1 and one of rs 2000 on respondent 2. in default of payment of fine imposed on respondent 2, he shall suffer a rigorous imprisonment for six.....
Judgment:

S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, J.

1. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that this case is clearly covered by our decision in the case of State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammed1. The respondent however has argued that since the offence was committed in 1975 and in view of the sudden change of the law laid down by this Court, a logical view of the matter may be taken.

2. As the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate was wrong in law, we set aside the same and convict Respondent 1 (Firm known as M/s Baboo Ram Shyam Sunder) and Respondent 2 (Baboo Ram) under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. As regards the sentence, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and of the fact that the law was changed by this Court long after the acquittal of the respondent, we release Respondent 2 on probation for a period of two years on execution of a bond of Rs 5000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. We also impose a fine of Rs 3000 on Respondent 1 and one of Rs 2000 on Respondent 2. In default of payment of fine imposed on Respondent 2, he shall suffer a rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fines shall be deposited within two months from today. Respondents 1 and 2 shall further give an undertaking to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that they shall not indulge in any kind of adulteration in future.

3. Acquittal of Respondent 3 (Shyam Sunder) is maintained.


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