DELHI ADMINISTRATION versus VIDYA GUPTA

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 24-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
DELHI ADMINISTRATION
v.
VIDYA GUPTA
(Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2018)
APRIL 24, 2018
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.7 – Sample
taken from the Ghee that was stored for the purpose of making
jalebis – Allegation that the sample of Ghee did not conform to the
standards of Ghee as per the Act – Conviction under ss.2(ia), (a),
(c) and (m) punishable under s.16(1)(a) r.w. s.7 of the Act – Acquittal
by first appellate court – High Court declined to set aside acquittal
on the ground that sample of Ghee was not meant for sale but it was
meant to be used merely as an ingredients in the preparation of
sweets which in turn were meant for sale – On appeal, held: s.7
prohibits the storing of adulterated food notwithstanding the fact
that such adulterated food is itself not offered for sale, but is used
in making some food which is offered for sale –  Thus, whether the
adulterated food is stored for sale, or such food is stored for making
some other food which is sold, such storing is an offence – Acquittal
of the respondent is set aside – However, sentence is confined to
the period already undergone since the accused is now about 70
years old and  the proceedings commenced in 2004 and the business
has closed down since.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.13 – Variance
between the reports of Public Analyst and the Director, CFL –
Evidentiary value of certificate from the Director – Held: The law
accords greater importance to the report from the Director that it
prohibits the Court from continuing with the prosecution until the
receipt of the certificate from the Director – Sub-section 3 of s.13
clearly attributes a higher evidentiary value to the certificate from
the Director when compared to the report given by the PA – The
proviso to sub-Section 5 provides that the certificate from the
Director shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated
therein – Thus, the report of the PA loses any significance in the
proceedings as a piece of evidence.
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 316
316
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
317
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The explanation to Section 7 clearly lays down
that if a person stores any adulterated food for the purpose of
manufacturing from it any article of food for sale, he shall be
deemed to store adulterated food. The purpose of this provision
is clear, it prohibits the storing of adulterated food
notwithstanding the fact that such adulterated food is itself not
offered for sale, but is used in making some food which is offered
for sale.  It is clearly to prevent the adulteration of food and its
sale to the public even when it is meant to be used for preparing
some other food which is offered for sale. Thus, either way,
whether the adulterated food is stored for sale, or if such food is
stored for making some other food which is sold, such storing is
an offence.  Parliament has rightly assumed that no one, who offers
food for sale, would store food which is not meant to be used in
some food meant for sale. [Para 6][321-G-H; 322-A-C]
2. The law accords such great importance to the report from
the Director that it prohibits the Court from continuing with the
prosecution until the receipt of the certificate from the Director.
Sub-section 3 of Section 13 clearly attributes a higher evidentiary
value to the certificate from the Director when compared to the
report given by the PA.  The proviso to sub-Section 5 provides
that the certificate from the Director shall be final and conclusive
evidence of the facts stated therein.  Thus, the report of the PA
loses any significance in the proceedings as a piece of evidence.
Therefore, there is no reason for the Court to refer to the contents
of the report of the PA.  Where there is no reason to refer to its
contents of the report of the PA, there is even less reason to
refer to the variation between the report of the PA and the
Director.  The Court is enjoined by law to consider the contents
of the certificate of the Director only. [Paras 9, 10][325-A-B, E-H]
3.  The finding of the High Court that the variation between
the two reports was 0.76% and therefore more than 0.3% as
permitted in Ram Singh’s case is completely unsustainable and
liable to be set aside.  It is thus clear that the accused was not
entitled to the acquittal and the acquittal is liable to be set aside.
However, the proceedings commenced in the year 2004, the
business has c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.