INDERJEET versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 10-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

255 
INDERJEET 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
August 10, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA }YER AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.J 
Statutory standardised sentence-Absolute liability 1vith mandatory 
mini-
muni sentence of six months' R.I. of offender's guilt of sale 
of adulterated 
food, w/Jether constitutionally bad, offending Articles 14, 19 and 21-Preven-
tion of Food Adulteration Act, Section 7 read with Section 16, vires of. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court 
HELD : Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adul-
1eration Act is constitutionally valid. 
[257G] 
Policy is for Parliament, constitutionality is for the Court. Protection of 
public health and regulation of noxious trade belong to the police power of 
the State an<l Legislation like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is of 
A 
B 
c 
that £enre. 
[256F-G] 
D 
If a sentence, as in the instant Act, is prescribed as a mandatory minimum 
and that is too cruel to comport with Art. 21 and too torturesome to be rea-
sonably justifiable or socially defensible under Article 19, then 
a case for 
jud'icial review 1nay arise. 
[256 G-H] 
Judge-proof sentencing· is not per se bad. Sometimes judicial fluctuations 
in punishment, especially on the softer side where white collar criminals are 
involved, induce legislative standardisation of 
sentences, 
to 
avoid 
giving 
societal protection in hostage to fortune. There is a wide play still left for 
the Court, and mandatory minima are familiar from the days of the 
Penal 
Code. [256H, 257AJ 
The prescription of equal protection is not breached either, because within 
the: range of judicial discretion the Court deals out to each what he deserves 
according to established principles. [257B] 
Observation 
(a) Public authorities entrusted with the 
enforcement 
of regulatory 
provisions to protect society may, tn proper cases, examine those 
prosecutions which are harassments to the humbler folk even 
if 
they technically violate the law and cause only minimal harm to 
society and decide whether they should at all sanction their prose-
cution. [257D-E] 
(b) The Legfslature, in its wisdom, may also consider the advisability 
E 
F 
G 
of resting power somewhere to reduce the sentence without 
the 
bigger offender escaping through these \Vider meshes meant for the 
smaller offenders. Even otherwise, there is a general po\ver in the 
Executive to commute sentences and such power can be put into 
H 
action on a principled basis when, small men_ get caught by the law. 
[257E-F] 
256 
SUl>REME COURT REPORTS 
fl 980] ] S.C.R. 
A 
0RIGJNAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 449 of 1979 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) 
B 
R. K. Garg and D. K. Garg for the Petitioner. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The adventurous petitioner imaginatively chal-
lenges the vires of Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention ot 
Food Adulteration Act and the relevant rules framed thereunder. The 
gravamen of his chmge is that the above provisions, read fogether, 
impose an inflexible minimum sentence of six months R.I. of offender's 
C 
guilty of sale of adulterated food, excluding in the process even the need 
to prove mens rea in the accused. 
This absolute liability, with man-
datory sentence, dependent on sophisticated chemical tests and compli-
cated formulae, is' oppressively unreasomble in the illiterate, agrestic 
realities of little Indian retail trade. 
Such, in one sentence, 
is 
the 
submission of counsel. 
D 
E 
G 
H 
The primary props to support this broad submission may be briefly 
noticed. 
Counsel complains that there is no classification as between 
injurious pollutants and innocuous adulterants while proscribing the 
sentence. 
Nor is there any intelligent differentiation 
between petty 
dealers and giant offenders, and vendors, big and small, are put on the 
Procrustean bed of stem punishment alike. 
Articles 14, 19 and 21" 
are the constitutional artillery employed by counsel to shoot down the 
said provisions of the Act. 
Frankly, we arc not impressed with the consternation about the 
constitutionality even if the potential for victimisation affecting smaller 
people may be real and elicit our commiseration. 
We may dwell for 
a moment on the latter grievance against the law a little later. 
First, 
we will repel the vice of unconstitutionality. 
Let us be clear about the basics. 
Policy is for Parliament, consti-
tutionality for the Court. Protection of public health and regula

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