LexDAYAL SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DAYAL SINGH v. ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN APRIL 13, 2004 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 195-i-Sections 7 and 16- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (as amended in 1988)-Appendix 'B'-Jtem No.25:01-Sugar confectionery-Presence of mineral oil amounted C to adulteration under the Rules-Mineral oil found in confectionery recovered from shop of accused-Conviction-Rules amended permitting presence of mineral oil upto 0.2%--Accused seeking acquittal based on amended standard-Held, accused is not entitled to acquittal as the amendment does not grant full exemption to presence of mineral oil-It is permissible only upto 0.20/~Report of Public Analyst does not state the percentage of mineral oil D as there was no such requirement during the relevant time-Stringent law is made to safeguard the health of consumers, hence court cannot take lenient view. Sample of hard boiled sugar confectionery recovered from the shop of appellant was found to be adulterated due to presence of mineral oil E and unpleasant smell and taste. Appellant was found guilty under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 2 years R.I. He appealed to Sessions Judge. During pendency of appeal, the Rules were amended, by virtue of which presence of mineral oil was per~itted subject to conditions, that mineral oil was of food grade and used as a lubricant, F and did not exceed 0.2% by weight. Sessions Judge upheld conviction but reduced sentence to 6 months. Appellant unsuccessfully preferred revi5ion before High Court. Hence the appeal. Appellant contended that since the appeal was pending when the amended Rules came into force, the Court was bound to take notice of it G and hold that the sample was not adulterated; that the report of the Public Analyst was defective inasmuch as it did not mention the percentage of mineral oil found in the sample and that any law mollifying the rigour of criminal law must be held to be retrospective in the sense that it must be 103 H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. A held to be applicable to pending proceedings, including appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is well-settled that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission B of that act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than with which he might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. Penal statute which create new offence is always prospective and a person can be punished for an offence committed by him in accordance with law as it existed on the date on which C an offence was committed. (110-E, G] Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR (1965) SC 444, relied on. 2. At the relevant time, mere presence of mineral oil, being an unwholesome ingredient, amounted to adulteration and therefore, it was D not necessary for the Public Analyst to mention the percentage of mineral oil found in the sample. Moreover under the modified standard the mineral oil found in the sample must be of food grade, if used as a lubricant. There is no report on this aspect of the matter by the Public Analyst, since he was not required to do so having regard to the standard then prescribed. It is not as if the amended Rules permit the presence of mineral oil in any E quantity and of any quality in hard boiled sugar confectionary. Presence of mineral oil even after the amendment will amount to adulteration if it is not of food grade, and not used as a lubricant, and it is more than 0.2% by weight. In the instant case it was not disputed that for the offence charged, a minimum sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months F G rigorous imp~isonment. Strict adherence to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could go away with mere fine. (111-D-F; 112-A-CJ Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mai Ram alias Bhaya Ram, (1974) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases; Shyam Lal v. State, AIR (1968) All. 392; Krishan Gopal Sharma and anr. v. Govt. of NC. T. of Delhi, (1996) 4 SCC 513; State of Orissa v. K. Rajehwar Rao, (1992) 1 SCC 365 and N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, (1995)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.