Laskari Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3683/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3683/1999)
Petitioner: Laskari Ram
Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3683/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3683/1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & A.P. MISRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 24, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Section 16 – Food adulteration – Primary food article – Burden of proof whether on the vendor or the prosecution. Held in re-spect of primary food articles the onus is on the part of the vendor to prove that the fall in standards was not due to human agency but due to natural causes.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant stands convicted under Section. 16 (1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to impris-onment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Though the Sessions Court acquitted him, the High Court reversed the acquit-tal and restored the conviction and sentence passed on him.
3. The food article which Appellant has sold to the Food Inspec-tor was milk. The public analyst after analysing the sample reported that it has fallen below standards prescribed for milk regarding non-fat contents and fat contents. One defence which Appellant adopted was that the milk was not properly stirred but that was not found favour with by the High Court. Here the con-tention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Food Inspector was not properly authorised to launch the prosecution. But that was not taken up at an early stage; and hence we are not disposed to countenance the said contention.
4. Milk being a primary food learned Counsel contended that it is for the prosecution to prove that the fall in standards was due to human agency and not due to natural causes. The burden of proof has been cast on the vendor of the primary food to show that the fall in standards was not due to human agency but on account of natural causes. Unfortunately, the Appellant has not adduced any evidence in the line.
5. The minimum sentence which the Act provides for the offence when the food article is primary food, is imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- . On the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to go beyond the minimum sentence particularly when there is no allegation that the milk contained any foreign article or even added water. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. If any amount of fine has been paid in excess, he can apply for refund.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant stands convicted under Section. 16 (1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to impris-onment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Though the Sessions Court acquitted him, the High Court reversed the acquit-tal and restored the conviction and sentence passed on him.
3. The food article which Appellant has sold to the Food Inspec-tor was milk. The public analyst after analysing the sample reported that it has fallen below standards prescribed for milk regarding non-fat contents and fat contents. One defence which Appellant adopted was that the milk was not properly stirred but that was not found favour with by the High Court. Here the con-tention raised by the learned Counsel is that the Food Inspector was not properly authorised to launch the prosecution. But that was not taken up at an early stage; and hence we are not disposed to countenance the said contention.
4. Milk being a primary food learned Counsel contended that it is for the prosecution to prove that the fall in standards was due to human agency and not due to natural causes. The burden of proof has been cast on the vendor of the primary food to show that the fall in standards was not due to human agency but on account of natural causes. Unfortunately, the Appellant has not adduced any evidence in the line.
5. The minimum sentence which the Act provides for the offence when the food article is primary food, is imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- . On the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any reason to go beyond the minimum sentence particularly when there is no allegation that the milk contained any foreign article or even added water. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. If any amount of fine has been paid in excess, he can apply for refund.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
