Sharif Ahmed Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Judge|| P.N. Shinghal and; V.R. Krishna Iyer, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1979SC1917; 1980CriLJ838; (1980)82PLR352; (1979)4SCC412; 1SCR312; 1980(12)LC122a(SC)|
|Acts||Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16|
|Respondent||State of Uttar Pradesh|
.....forward the losses as it had not filed the returns in accordance with s. 22(2a) of the act. the high court, in reference, held that a voluntary return showing loss could be validly filed at any time before assessment was made on the strength of the provision in s. 22(3) of the act and the assessee was entitled to have such loss carried 'forward under s. 24(2). the commissioner of income-tax appealed to this court, held: per hegde and grover, jj.-the appeal must be dismissed. (i) in view of this court's decision in ranchhoddas karsondas's case the income-tax officer could not have ignored the returns and had to determine the losses shown by the assessee. section 24(2) confers the benefit of losses being set off and carried forward and there is no provision in s. 22 under which losses..........not equal to evidence of absence. for ought we know, the prohibition under the act and the rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. it is true that the high court has, under a mis-conception, reduced the sentence, but we cannot be pressurised further into following the wrong path. the special leave petition is dismissed.
V.R Krishna Iyer, J.
1. Counsel for the petitioner states that the sentence imposed upon his client for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act must be reduced because the adulterant, namely, prohibited coal-tar dye, is, in his submission, non-injurious or an innocent mix. Therefore, the imprisonment part of the sentence, it was urged, should be eliminated. It is true that the High Court has observed that the 'colour which was mixed with powdered chillies' is not mentioned in the Public Analyst's report to be injurious to human life. It does not follow that because it is not specifically mentioned to be injurious, it is non-injurious. Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence. For ought we know, the prohibition under the Act and the Rules has been imposed because it is harmful to human health. It is true that the High Court has, under a mis-conception, reduced the sentence, but we cannot be pressurised further into following the wrong path. The special leave petition is dismissed.